if 


w^., 


lttmt$ita  af  € 


THE 

CALVimSTIC  .WB  SOCIffUtJC 

SYSTEMS 

EXAMINED    AND    COMPARED,     ""T-- 

AS  TO  THEIR  MORAL  TENDENCY: 

IN     A     SERIES     OF     LETTERS^ 
ADDRESSED     TO    THE     V<^^ 

FRIENDS  OF  VITAL  AND  PRACTICAL  RELIGION. 


From  a  new  and  correct  London  Edition* 


TO    WHICH    IS    ADDED, 


A    POSTSCRIPT, 

ESTABLISHING    THE    PRINCIPLE    OF   THE   WORK 
AGAINST    THE    EXCEPTIONS     OF     Dr. 

TouLMiN,  Mr.  Belsham,  &c. 


BY  ANDREW  FULLER. 


Grace  be  with  all  them  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
in  sincerity Paul. 


BOSTON    : 

PRINTED    AND    PUBLISHED    BY    LINCOLN   &  EDMANDS. 

Sold  at  their  Bible  Warehouse,  and 
Theological  &  Miscellaneous  Bookstore,  No.  53  Cornhill, 

1815. 


PREFACE. 


THE  following  Letters  are  addressed  to  the  friends 
of  vital  and  practical  religion^  because  the  Author  is 
persuaded  that  the  ver}^  essence  of  true  piety  is  concern- 
ed in  this  controversy  ;  and  that  godly  men  are  the  only 
proper  judges  of  divine  truth,  being  the  only  humble, 
upright,  and  earnest  inquirers  after  it.  So  far  from 
thinkinj^  with  Dr.  Priestley,  that  "  an  unbiassed  tem- 
per of  mind  is  attained  in  consequence  of  becoming 
more  indifferent  to  religion  in  general,  and  to  all  the 
modes  and  doctrines  of  it  ;"  he  is  satisfied  that  persons 
of  that  description  have  a  most  powerful  bias  against 
the  truth.  Though  it  were  admitted  that  false  princi- 
ples, accompaiiied  with  a  bigotted  attachment  to  them, 
are  worse  than  none  ;  yet  he  cannot  admit  that  irrelig- 
ious men  are  destitute  of  principles.  He  has  no  notion 
of  human  minds  being  unoccupied,  or  inditleretU  :  he 
that  is  not  a  friend  to  religion  in  any  mode,  is  an  enemy 
to  it  in  all  mo«ies  ;  he  is  a  libertine  ;  lie  doth  evil,  and 
therefore  hateth  the  light.  And  shall  we  compliment 
such  a  character  by  acknowledging  him  to  be  m  "  a 
favourable  situation  for  distinguishing  betvveen  truth 
and  falsehood  ?*  God  forbid  !  It  is  he  that  doeth  his 
toilly  that  shall  know  of  his  doctrine.  The  luiiubie,  the 
candid,  the  upright  inquirers  alter  truth,  are  the  per- 
so  IS  who  are  likely  to  tind  it  ;  and  to  them  the  Author 
takes  the  liberty  to  appeal. 

The  principal  occasion  of  these  Letters,  was,  the  late 
union  among  Protestant  Dissenters,  in  reference  to  civil 
affairs,  having  been  the  source  of  various  misconcep- 
tions ;  and  as  the  writer  a()prehends,  improved  as  a 
mean  of  disseminating  Socinian  principles. 
A  2 
•  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  95. 


VI  PREFACE. 

In  the  late  application  to  Parliament  for  the  repeal  of 
the  Corporation  and  Test  Acts,  the  dissenters  have 
ujiited  without  an^'  lespect  to  their  doctrinal  principles. 
They  considereci  themselves  as  applying  merely  for  a 
civil  right  ;  and  that  in  such  an  application,  difference 
in  theological  sentiments  had  no  more  concern,  than  it 
has  in  the  union  oi  a  nation  under  one  civil  head  or 
form  of  government. 

This  union,  however,  has  become  an  occasion  of 
many  reflections.  Serious  men  of  the  established 
church  have  expressed  thf  ir  surprise  that  some  dissen- 
ters could  unite  with  others  so  opposite  in  their  religi- 
ious  principles  ;  and  had  the  union  been  of  a  religious 
nature,  it  must  indeed  have  been  surprising.  Others 
have  supposed  that  the  main  body  of  dissenters  had 
either  imbibed  the  Socinian  system,  or  were  hastily  ap- 
proaching towards  it.  Whether  the  suggestion  of  Dr. 
Horsley,  that  *'  the  genuine  Calvinists  among  our  mod- 
ern dissenters  are  very  few,*'  has  contributed  to  thi& 
opinion,  or  whatever  be  its  origin,  it  is  far  from  being 
just.  Every  one  who  knows  the  dissenters,  knows  that 
the  body  of  them  are  what  is  commonly  called  orthodox. 
Dr.  J^riestley,  who  is  well  known  to  be  sufficiently 
sanguine  in  estimating  the  numbers  of  his  party — so 
sanguine  that,  when  speaking  of  rhe  common  people  o^ 
this  country,  he  reckons  *'  nine  out  of  ten  of  them 
would  prefer  a  Unitarian  to  a  Trinitarian  liturgy  ;"* 
yet  acknowledges,  in  regard  to  the  dissenters,  that  Uni- 
tarians are  by  far  the^  minority.  In  Birmingham, 
where  the  proportion  of  their  number  to  the  rest  of  the 
dissenters  is  greater  than  in  any  other  town  in  the  king- 
dom, it  appears  from  Dr.  Priestley's  account  of  the 
matter,  that  those  called  orthodox  are  nearly  three  to 
one  :  and  throuiihout  Enuland  and  Wales  they  have 
been  suoposed  to  be  "  as  two,  if  not  as  three  to  one,  to 
the  Socinians  and  Arians  inclusive."f 

*  Def.  of  Unit,  for  1786,  p.  61. 

t  See  Dr.  Priestley's  Farniliar  Letters  to  the  inhabitants 
of  Birming-liam.  Let.  iii.  xi.  Also  Mr.  Parry's  Remarks  on 
th^  resolutions  of  the  Warwick  Meeting'. 


P&EFACE*  VII 

If  Dr.  Horsley  found  it  necessary  in  support  of  his 
^  ause,  to  overturn  Dr.  Priestley's  assertion,  that  "  great 

>o<iies  of  men  do  not  cnange  their  opinioini  in  a  small 
bpace  of  time  f'  some  think  he  might  have  found  ^n 
example  more  to  h>s  purpose,  than  that  of  the  body  of 
dissenters  having  deeerteti  their  forirver  principles,  in 
the  well-known  change  oi  ihe.  major  part  of  the  Church 
of  England  ;  who,  about  the  time  of  Archbishop  Laud, 
we4)t  off  from  Calvinism  to  Arminianism«  Had  this 
example  been  adduced,  his>  a  '     Save  found 

some  difficulty  in  maintain'.,  uiist  him  ; 

as  it  is  an  undoubted  fact,  and  a  iHjt  wiiici.  he  himsc4f 
acknowledges,  with  several   others   oi    the  kind,  in  the 

Third  of  his  Familiar  Letters  to  the  Inhabitants  of 
Birmingkam. 

The  supposition,   however,  of  the  dissent er*'    lycinqf 
generally  gone,  or  going  off  to  Socinianisni,  \\  r 

Irom  just,  has  not  bten  without  its  apparent 
The  consequence  vvlijch  Socinians  have  assumed,  in  j.a- 
pers  and  pamphlets,  which  have  been  circulated  abcut 
the  country,  has  affbrdtd  rooin  lor  s«uch  a  supposiiun. 
It  has  not  been  very  uncommon  for  them  to  speak 
of  themselves  as  the  dissfnters,  the  modern  »is- 
^-'^TERs,  &c.  it  was  said  in  a  paper  thai  was  pub- 
.1  more  than  once,  *'  The  ancient,  like  the  modern 
iicoytnters  worshipped  one  (»od — they  knew  nothing  of 
the  Nicene  or  Athanasian  creeds." — The  celebrated 
authoress  of  The  Address  to  the  Opposers  of  the  Repeal 
of  the  Corporation  and  Test  Acts^  is  not  clear  in  this 
matter.  That  otherwise  admirable  performance  is 
tinged  with  the  pride  of  party  cousi^qut  nee.  "We 
thauk  y<Mi  gentlemen  (she  says)  for  the  connplimeiit 
paid  the  dissenters,  wh^n  you  suppose  that  the  mo- 
ment they  are  eligible  to  places  of  poner  and  profit,  all 
such  places  will  at  once  be  filled  with  Xhvrr  .-We  had 
not  the  presumption  to  imagine  that,  in  >~ 

we  are  in  numbers,  compared  to  the  estah 
inftrrior  too  ii»  fortune  and  influence,   labouring  as  we 
do  under  the  frowns  of  the  court,  and  the  anathema 
OF  THE  ORTHODOX,  we  shouid  make  our  way  so  readily 


VllI  PREFACE. 

into  the  recesses  of  royal  favour." — Even  the  Monthly 
Reiyieiocrs,  though  they  have  borne  ttstinnony  a<^aUiSt 
miugiuii^  doctrinal  dispute^  with  those  of  the  repeal 
of  the  Test-laws  ;*  yet  have  sometimes  spoken  of 
dissenters  and  Socinians,  as  if  they  were  terms  of  the 
same  meaning  and  extent.  "  It  appears  to  us  as  ab- 
surd (they  say)  to  charge  xhe  religious  principles  of 
THE  uissEMTfcRi?  With  republicanism,  as  it  would  be 
to  advance  the  same  accusation  against  the  Psewtonian 
philosophy.  The  doctri^ue  cf  gravitation  may  as  well 
be  deeuied  ^iangcroui>4<^ ^he  state,  as  SociNiANiSM.^'f 

Is  it  unnatural  from  such  representations  as  these,  for 
those  who  k«iow  but  little  ot  us,  to  consider  the  Socin- 
ians  as  constituting  the  main  body  of  the  dissenters  ; 
and  the  Cah'iuists  as  only  a  few  stragglers,  who  follow 
these  leading  men  at  a  distance  in  all  their  measures, 
but  whose  numbers  and  consequence  are  so  small, 
that  even  the  mention  of  their  names  among  protestant 
dissenters  may  very  well  be  omitted  ? 

This,  however,  as  it  only  affects  our  reputation, 
or  at  most  can  only  impede  the  repeal  of  the  Test-laws, 
by  strengthening  a  prejudice,  too  strong  already,  against 
the  whole  body  of  dissenters,  might  be  over-looked. 
But  this  is  not  all  :  it  is  pretty  evident  that  the  union 
among  us  in  civil  matters  has  been  improved  for  the 
purpose  of  disseminating  religious  principles.  At  one 
of  the  most  public  meetings  for  the  repeal  of  the  C'or- 
poration  and  Test  Acts,  as  the  author  was  credibly  in- 
formed, Socinian  peculiarities  were  advanced,  which 
passed  unnoticed,  because,  those  of  contrary  principles 
did  not  choose  to  interrupt  the  harmony  of  the  meeting, 
bv  turning  the  attention  of  gentlemen  from  the  imme- 
diate object  for  which  they  were  assembled,  \^'hat  end 
could  Dr.  Priestley  have  in  introducing  so  much  about 
the  Test  Act  in  his  controversy  with  Mr.  Burn,  on  the 
person  of  Christ  ;  except  it  were  to  gild  the  pill,  and 
make  it  go  down  the  easier  with  Calvinistic  dissenters  } 

•  Mon.  Rev.  enlarged.    Vol.  I.  p.  233. 
t  M.  R.  enlarged,  for  June  1790,  p.  247. 


PREFACE.       .  IX 

The  writer  of  these  Letters  does  not  blame  the 
dissenters  of  his  own  persuasion  for  uniting  with  the 
Socinians.  In  civil  matters  he  thinks  it  lawful  to 
unite  with  jneuy  be  their  religious  principles  what  they 
may  :  but  he  and  many  others  would  be  very  sorry,  if  a 
union  of  this  kind  should  prove  an  occasion  of  abating 
our  zeal  for  those  religious  principles  which  we  con- 
sider as  being  of   the  very  essence  of  the  gospel. 

The  reason  why  the  term  Socinians  is  preferred  in  the 
foUowino^  Letters  to  that  of  Unitarians,  is  not  for  the 
mean  purpose  of  reproach  ;  but  because  the  latter  name 
is  not  a  fair  one.  The  term,  as  constantly  explained  by 
themselves,  signifies  those  professors  of  Christianity  who 
worship  but  one  God :  but  this  is  not  that  wherein  they 
can  be  alloived  to  be  distinguished  from  others.  F  or 
what  professors  of  Christianity  are  there,  who  profess  to_ 
worship  a  plurality  of  Gods?  Trinitarians  profess  also 
to  be  Unitarians  :  they,  as  well  as  their  opponents,  be- 
lieve there  is  but  one  God.  To  give  Socinians  this  name 
therefore  exclusivelt/,  would  be  granting  them  the 
very  point  which  they  seem  so  desirous  to  take  for 
granted,  that  is  to  say,  the  point  in  debate. 

Names,  it  may  be  said,  signify  little  ;  and  this  signi- 
fies no  more  on  one  side,  than  the  term  orthodox  does  on 
the  other.  The  writer  owns,  when  he  first  conceived 
the  design  of  publishing  these  Letters,  he  thought  so  : 
and  intended  all  along  to  use  the  term  Unitarians. 
What  made  him  alter  his  mind  was,  his  observing  that 
the  principal  writers  in  that  scheme  have  frequently 
availed  themselves  of  the  above  name,  and  appear  to 
wish  to  have  it  thought  by  their  readers  that  the  point 
in  dispute  between  them  and  the  Trinitarians,  is, 
Whether  there  be  three  Gods,  or  only  one  ? 

If  he  had  thousfht  the  use  of  the  term  Unitarians 
consistent  with  justice  to  his  own  argument,  he  would 
have  preferred  it  to  that  of  Socinians  ;  and  would  also 
have  been  glad  of  a  term  to  express  the  system  which 
he  has  defended,  instead  of  calling  it  after  the  name  of 
Calvin  ;    as  he  is  aware  that  callin»>  ourselves  after  the 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER                                                                                              PAGE 
I.    Introduction  and  General  remarks 13 

II.     The  systems  compared  as  to  their  tendency 

to  convert  profligates  to  a  life  of  holiness  -       21 

III.  ■        Their  tendency  to  convert  profess- 

ed unbelievers -       42 

IV.  The  argument  from  the  number  of  converts 

to  Socinianisra  examined 55 

V.     On  the  standard  of  morality 70 

VI.     The  systems  compared  as  to  their  tendency 

to  promote  morality  in  general 80 

VII. Love  to  God 107 

VIII.  Candour  and  benevolence  to  men     125 

IX. Humility      144 

X.  Charity,  in    which  is    considered 

the  charge  of  Bigotry 155 

XI. Love  to  Christ 185 

XII. Veneration  for  the  Scriptures  -  -     199 

XIII. Happiness  or  cheerfulness  of  mind     223 

XIV.  A  comparison  of  motives,  exhibited  by  the 
two  systems,   to  gratitude,  obedience,  and 

heavenly-mindedness      240 

XV.  On  the  resemblance  between  Socinianism 
and  infidelity,  and  the  tendency  of  the  one 
to  the  other 255 

Postscript ,.-------     282 


THE 

CALVINISTIC  AND  SOCINIAN  SYSTEMS 

EXAMINED    AND    COMPARED, 


LETTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION  AND  GENERAL  REMARKS. 

Christian  Bretkreriy 

MUCH  has  been  written  of  late  years  on  the  So- 
cinian  controversy  ;  so  much,  that  the  attention  of  the 
Christian  world  has,  to  a  considerable  de<^ree,  been 
drawn  towards  it.  There  is  no  reason,  however,  for 
considering  this  circumstance  as  a  matter  of  wonder, 
or  of  regret.  Not  of  wonder :  for  supposing  the 
Deity  and  atonement  of  Christ  to  be  divine  truths,  they 
are  of  such  importance  in  the  christian  scheme  as  to 
induce  the  adversaries  of  the  gospel  to  bend  their  main 
force  against  them,  as  against  the  rock  on  which  Christ 
hath  built  his  church.  Not  of  regret :  for  whatever 
partial  evils  may  arise  from  a  full  discussion  of  a  sub- 
ject, the  interests  of  truth  will,  doubtless,  in  the  end 
prevail  ;  and  the  prevalence  of  truth  is  a  good  that  will 
outweigh  all  the  ills  that  may  have  attended  its  dis- 
covery. Controversy  engages  a  number  of  persons  of 
different  talents  and  turns  of  mind  ;  and  by  this  means 
the  subject  is  likely  to  be  considered  in  every  view  in 
which  it  is  capable  of  being  exhibited  to  advantage. 
B 


J 


$r 


14  INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS.  £lET.    1. 

The  point  of  light  in  which  the  subject  will  be  con- 
^  «iderecl  in  these  letters,  namely,  as  injiuencing  the  heart 
€tnd  life,  has  been  frequently  glanced  at  on  both  sides. 
1  do  not  recollect,  however,  to  have  seen  this  view  of  it 
professedly  and  separately  handled. 

In  the  great  controversy  in  the  time  of  Elijah,  re- 
course was  had  to  an  expedient  by  which  the  question 
was  decided.  Each  party  built  an  altar,  cut  in  pieces  a 
bullock,  and  laid  the  victim  upon  the  wood,  but  put  no 
fire  under;  and  the  God  that  should  answer  by  fire, 
was  to  be  acknowledged  as  the  true  god.  We  can- 
not bring  our  controversies  to  such  a  criterion  as  this: 
we  may  bring  them  to  one,  however,  which,  though  not 
so  suddenly,  is  not  much  less  sensibly  evident.  The 
tempers  and  lives  of  men  are  books,  for  common  people 
to  read ;  and  they  will  read  them,  even  though  they 
should  read  nothing  else*  They  are  indeed  warranted 
by  the  scriptures  themselves  to  judge  of  the  nature  of 
doctrines,  by  their  holy  or  unholy  tendency.  The  true 
gospel  is  to  be  known  by  its  being  a  doctrine  according 
to  godliness  ;  teaching  those  who  embrace  it  to  deny  un^ 
godliness,  and  worldly  lusts,  and  to  live  soberly^  right" 
eously,  and  godly  in  the  present  world.  Those,  on  the 
other  hand,  tvho  believe  not  the  truth,  are  said  to  have 
pleasure  in  unrighteousness.  Profane  and  vain  bab-^ 
blings,  as  the  ministrations  of  false  teachers  are  called, 
tvill  increase  unto  more  ungodliness;  and  their  word 
will  eat  as  doth  a  canker,^  To  this  may  be  added,  that 
the  parties  themselves,  engaged  in  this  controversy, 
have  virtually  acknowledged  the  justice  and  importance 
of  the  above  criterion  ;  in  that  both  sides  have  inciden- 
tally endeavoured  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  A  criterion 
then  by  which  the  common  people  will  judge,  by  which 

•  1  Tim.  vi.  3.    Tit.  ii.  12.    2  Thes.  ii.  2.     1  Tim.  ii.  16,  If. 


tET.    1.]  INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS.  15 

the  scripture  authorises  them  to  judge,  and  by  which 
both  sides  in  effect  agree  to  be  judged,  cannot  but  be 
worthy    of   particular  attention. 

I  feel,  for  my  own  part,  satisfied  not  only  of  the  truth 
and  importance  of  the  doctrines  in  question,  but  also 
of  their  holy  tendency,  I  am  aware,  however,  that 
others  think  differently,  and  that  a  considerable  part 
of  what  1  have  to  advance  must  be  on  the  defensive. 

*'  Admitting  the  truth,"  says  Dr.  Priestley,  *'  of  a 
trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  original  sin,  arbitra- 
ry predestination,  atonement  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  their 
value,  estimated  by  their  influence  on  the  morals  of 
men,  cannot  be  supposed,  even  by  the  admirers  of 
them,  to  be  of  any  moment,  compared  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  human  race  to  a  life  of  retri- 
bution :  and,  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  reject  them, 
they  have  a  very  unfavourable  tendency,  giving  wrong 
impressions  concerning  the  character  and  moral  govern- 
ment of  God,  and  such  as  might  tend,  if  they  have  any 
effect,  to  relax  the  obligations  of  virtue."* 

In  many  instances  Dr.  Priestley  deserves  applause 
for  his  frankness  and  fairness  as  a  disputant :  in  this 
passage,  however,  as  well  as  in  some  others,  the  admirers 
of  the  doctrines  he  mentions  are  unfairly  represented.^ 
They  who  embrace  the  other  doctrines  are  supposed 
to  hold  that  of  arbitrary  predestination  ;  but  this  sup- 
position is  not  true.  The  term  arbitrary  conveys  the 
idea  of  caprice  ;  and  in  this  connexion  denotes,  that,  in 
predestination,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  notion  of  itr 
God  resolves  upon  the  fates  of  men,  and  appoints  them 
to  this  or  that,  without  any  reason  for  so  doing.  But 
there  is  no  justice  in  this  representation.     There  is  no 

*   Lett,  to  Phil.  Unb.  Pt.  ii.  p.  33,  25, 


l6  INTRODUCTORY   REMARK*.  [lET.  1. 

decree  in  the  divine  mind  that  we  consider  as  void  of 
reason.  Predestination  to  death  is  on  account  of  sin  ; 
and  as  to  prede*stination  to  life,  though  it  be  not  on 
account  of  any  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have 
done,  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  God  kas  no  reason 
whatever  for  what  he  does.  The  sovereignty  of  God 
is  a  wise,  and  not  a  capricious  sovereignty.  If  he  hide 
the  glory  of  the  gospel  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and 
reveal  it  unto  babes,  it  is  because  it  seemeth  good  in  his 
sight.  But  if  it  seem  good  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  must, 
all  things  considered,  be  good  :  for  the  judgment  of 
God  is  according  to  truth. 

It  is  asserted  also  that  the  admirers  of  the  foremen- 
tioned  doctrines  cannot,  and  do  not,  consider  them  as 
of  equal  importance  with  that  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
human  race  to  a  life  of  retribution.  But  this,  I  am 
satisfied,  is  not  the  case  :  for  whatever  Dr.  Priestley 
may  think,  they  consider  them,  or  at  least  some  of  them, 
as  essential  to  true  holiness  ;  and  of  such  consequence,  . 
even  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  human 
race  to  a  life  of  retribution,  that,  without  them,  such  a 
resurrection  would  be  a  curse  to  mankind  rather  than 
a  blessing. 

There  is  one  thing,  however,  in  the  above  passage^ 
wherein  we  all  unite  ;  and  this  is,  that  the  value  or 
importance  of  religious  principles  is  to  be  estimated  by 
their  influence  on  the  morals  of  men.  By  this  rule  let 
the  forementioned  doctrines,  with  their  opposites,  be 
tried.  If  either  those  or  these  will  not  abide  the  trial* 
they  ought  to  be  rejected. 

Before  we  enter  upon  a  particular  examination  of  the 
subject,  however,  I  would  make  three  or  four  general 
observations. 


LET.    r.J  INTRODTUCTORY    REMARK*.  1? 

First,  Whatever  Dr.  Priestley  or  any  others  have 
said,  of  the  immoral  tendency  of  our  principles,  I  am 
persuaded  that  i  may  take  it  for  granted,  they  do  not 
mean  to  suggest,  that  we  are  not  good  members  ot  civil 
society,  or  worthy  of  the  most  perfect  toleration  in  the 
state  ;  nor  have  1  any  such  meaning  in  what  may  be 
suggested  concerning  theirs. —  1  do  not  know  any  relig- 
ious denomination  of  men,  who  are  unworthy  of  civi 
protection.  So  long  as  their  practices  do  not  disturb 
the  peace  of  society,  and  there  be  nothing  in  their  avow- 
ed principles  inconsistent  with  their  giving  security  for 
their  good  behaviour,  they  doubtless  ought  to  be  pro- 
tected in  the  enjoyment  of  every  civil  right  to  which 
their  fellow  citizens  at  large  are  entitled. 

Secondly,  It  is  not  the  bad  conduct  of  a  few  individ- 
uals, in  any  denomination  of  christians,  that  proves  any 
thing  on  either  side  ;  even  though  they  may  be  zealous 
advocates  for  the  peculiar  tenets  of  the  party  which  they 
espouse.  It  is  the  conduct  of  the  general  body  from 
which  we  ought  to  form  our  estimate. — That  there  are 
men  of  bad  character  who  attend  on  our  preaching,  ia 
not  denied  ;  perhaps  some  of  the  worst  :  but  if  it  be  so, 
it  proves  nothing  to  the  dishonour  of  our  principles. 
Those,  who,  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  were  not 
humbled  by  the  gospel^,  were  generally  hardened  by  it. 
Nay,  were  it  allowed  that  we  have  a  greater  number  o€ 
hypocrites  than  the  Socinians,  (as  it  hath  been  insinuat- 
ed that  the  hypocrisy  and  preciseness  of  some  people- 
afford  matter  of  just  disgust  to  speculative  Unitarians)  t 
do  not  think  this  supposition,,  any  more  than  the  other, 
dishonourable  to  our  principles.  The  defect  of  hypo- 
crites lies  not  so  much  in  the  thing  professed,  as  in  the 
sincerity  of  their  profession.  The  thing  professed  may 
be  excellent,  and  perhaps  is  the  more  hkely  to  be  so 
B  2 


18  INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS.  [lET.    I. 

from  its  being  counterfeited  ;  for  it  is  not  usual  to  coun- 
terfeit things  of  no  value.  Those  persons  who  entertain 
low  and  diminutive  ideas  of  the  evil  of  sin  and  the  digni- 
ty of  Christ,  must,  in  order  to  be  thought  religious  by 
us,  counterfeit  the  contrary  ;  but,  among  Socinians,  the 
same  persons  may  avow  those  ideas,  and  be  caressed  for 
it.  That  temper  of  mind  which  we  suppose  common  to 
men,  as  being  that  which  they  possess  by  nature,  need 
not  be  disguised  among  them  in  order  ^o  be  well  thought 
of;  they  have  therefore  no  great  temptations  to  hypocri- 
sy. The  question  in  hand,  however,  is  not.  What 
influence  either  our  principles  or  theirs  have  upon  per- 
sons who  do  not  in  reality  adopt  them  ;  but.  What  in- 
fluence they  have  upon  those  who  do  ?* 

Thirdly,  It  is  not  the  good  conduct  of  a  few  individ- 
uals on  either  side  that  will  prove  any  thing. — Some 
have  adopted  a  false  creed,  and  retain  it  in  words,  who 
yet  never  enter  into  the  spirit  of  it ;  and  consequently 
do  not  act  upon  it.  But  merely  dormant  opinions  can 
hardly  be  called  principles  :  those,  rather,  seem  to  be  a 
man's  principles,  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  his  spirit 
and  conduct. — Farther;  Good  men  are  found  in  denom- 

*  Though  the  Socinians  be  allowed,  in  what  is  said  above^ 
to  have  but  few  hypocrites  among  them  ;  yet  this  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  relating  merely  to  one  species  of  hypocrisy.  Dr. 
Priestley,  speaking  of  Unitarians  who  still  continue  in  the 
Church  of  England,  says,  "  From  a  just  aversion  to  every  thing 
that  looks  like  hypocrisy  and  preciseness,  they  rather  lean  to  the 
extreme  of  fashionable  dissipation."  Yet  he  represents  the 
same  persons,  and  that  in  the  same  page,  as  "  continuing  to 
countenance  a  mode  of  worship,  which,  if  they  were  questioned 
about  it,  they  could  not  deny  to  be,  according  to  their  own 
principles,  idolatrous  and  blasphemous.*'  Discourses  on  Various 
Subjects^  p.  96.  The  hypocrisy,  then,  to  which  these  gentlemen 
have  so  juot  an  aversion,  seems  to  be  only  of  on€  kind. 


LET.    1.]  INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS.  1^ 

inations  whose  principles  are  very  bad  ;  and  good  men,  by 
whatever  names  they  are  called,  are  more  nearly  of  a  sen- 
timent than  they  are  frequently  aware  of.  Take  two  of 
them  who  ditfer  the  most  in  words,  and  bring  them  up- 
on  their  knees  in  prayer,  and  they  will  be  nearly  agreed. 
— Besides,  A  great  deal  of  that  which  passes  for  virtue 
amongst  men,  is  not  so  in  the  sight  of  God,  who  sees 
things  as  they  are.  It  is  no  more  than  may  be  account- 
ed for  without  bringing  religion  or  virtue  into  the  ques- 
tion. There  are  motives  and  considerations  which  will 
commonly  influence  men,  living  in  society,  to  behave 
with  decorum.  Various  occupations  and  pursuits,  es- 
pecially those  of  a  mental  and  religious  kind,  are  incon- 
sistent with  profligacy  of  manners.  False  apostles,  the 
very  ministers  of  Sat  an  y  are  said  to  transform  themselves 
into  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and  to  appear  as  the  ministers 
of  righteousness  ;  even  as  Satan  himself  is  transformed 
into  an  angel  of  light,*  There  are  certain  vices,  which, 
being  inconsistent  with  others,  may  be  the  means  of  re- 
straining them.  Covetousness  may  be  the  cause  of  so- 
briety ;  and  pride  restrains  thousands  from  base  and 
ignoble  gratifications,  in  which,  nevertheless,  their 
hearts  take  secret  and  supreme  delight.  A  decent  con- 
duct has  been  found  in  pharisees,  in  infidels,  nay,  even 
in  atheists.  Dr.  Priestley  acknowledges  that  *'  An 
atheist  may  be  temperate,  good-natured,  honest,  and  in 
the  less  extended  sense  of  the  word,  a  virtuous  ?;/<7«/*f 
Yet  Dr.  Priestley  would  not  from  hence  infer  any  thing 
in  favour  of  the  moral  tendency  of  atheism. 

Lastly,  Neither  zeal  in  defence  of  principles,  nor  eve- 
ry kind  o^  devotion  springing  from  them,  will  prove  those 
principles  to  be  true,  or  worthy  of  God. — Several  gen- 

•  2  Cor.  xi.  13,  14,  15. 
I  Lett,  to  a  Phil.  Unb,  Pt.  i.  p.  6.  pref. 


20  INTRODlfCTORY    REMARKS.  [lET.    1. 

tlemen,  who  have  gone  over  from  the  Calvinistic  to  the 
Sociriian  system,  are  said  to  possess  greater  zeal  for  the 
propagation  of  the  latter,  than  they  had  used  to  discov- 
er for  that  of  the  former.  As  this,  however,  makes 
nothing  to  the  disadvantage  of  their  system,  neither 
does  it  make  any  thing  to  its  advantage.  This  may  be 
owing,  for  any  thing  that  can  be  proved  to  the  contrary, 
to  their  having  found  a  system  more  consonant  to  the 
bias  of  their  hearts,  than  that  was  which  they  formerly 
professed. — And  as  to  devotion,  a  species  of  this  may 
exist  in  persons,  and  that  to  a  high  degree,  consistent 
enough  with  the  worst  of  principles.  We  know  that  the 
gospel  had  no  worse  enemies  than  the  devout  and  hon^ 
ourabte  amongst  the  Jews,*  Saul,  while  an  enemy  to 
Jesus  Christ,  was  as  sincere,  as  zealous,  and  as  devout 
in  his  way,  as  any  of  those  persons  whose  sincerity,  zeal 
and  devotion,  are  frequently  held  up  by  their  admirers 
in  favour  of  their  i^auise. 

These  observations  may  be  thought  by  some,  instead 
of  clearing  the  subject,  to  involve  it  in  greater  difficul- 
ties, and  to  render  it  almost  impossible  to  judge  of  the 
tendency  of  principles  by  any  thing  that  is  seen  in  the 
lives  of  men.  It  is  allowed  the  subject  has  its  difficul- 
ties, and  that  the  foregoing  observations  are  a  proof  o^ 
it:  but  I  hope  to  make  it  appear,  whatever  difficulties 
may  on  these  accounts  attend  the  subject,  that  there  is 
still  enough  in  the  geoeral  spirit  and  conduct  of  men, 
by  which  to  judge  of  the  tendency  of  their  principles. 

1  am,  &c,       -^ 


*  Acts  xiii.  50. 


LET.    2.]  THE   CONVERSION,  &C.  21 


LETTER   11. 

THE  SYSTEMS  COMPAREB,    AS  TO    THEIR  TENDENCY  TO 
CONVERT    PROFLIGATES    TO    A    LIFE    OF    HOLINESS. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

YOU  need  not  be  told,  that  being  horn  again^^re-* 
ated  in  Christ  Jesus — converted — becoming  as  a  little 
childy  Sfc.  are  phrases  expressive  of  a  change  of  heart, 
which  the  scriptures  make  necessary  to  a  life  of  holiness 
here,  and  to  eternal  life  hereafter.  It  is  on  this  account 
that  I  begin  with  conversion^  considering  it  as  the  com- 
mencement of  a  holy  life. 

A  change  of  this  sort  was  as  really  necessary  for  iNjc- 
odemuSy  whose  outward  character,  for  aught  appears* 
was  respectable,  as  for  Zaccheus,  whose  life  had  been 
devoted  to  the  sordid  pursuits  of  avarice.  Few,  1  sup- 
pose, will  deny  this  to  be  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  Nevf 
Testament.  But,  should  this  be  questioned,  should 
the  necessity  of  a  change  of  heart  in  some  characters  be 
denied,  still  it  will  be  allowed  necessary  in  others. 
Now,  as  a  change  is  more  conspicuous,  and  consequent- 
ly more  convincing,  in  such  persons  who  have  walked 
in  an  abandoned  course,  than  in  those  of  a  more  sober 
life,  I  have  fixed  upon  the  conversion  of  proJiigateSy 
as  a  suitable  topic  for  the  present  discussion. 

There  are  two  methods  of  reasoning  which  may  be 
used  in  ascertaining  the  moral  tendency  of  principles. 
The  first  is,  by  comparing  the  nature  of  the  principles 
themselves  with  the  nature  of  true  holiness,  and  the 
agreement  or  disagreement  of  the  one  with  the  other. 
The  second  is,  by  referring  to  plain  and  acknowledged 


2:2  THE    CONVERSION  [LET.    2. 

facts,  judging  of  the  nature  of  causes  by  their  effects. 
Both  these  methods  of  reasoning,  which  are  usually  ex- 
pressed by  the  terms  a  priori^  and  a  posteriori^  will  be 
used  in  this  and  the  following  Letters,  as  the  nature  of 
the  subject  may  admit. 

True  conversion  is  comprehended  in  those  two  grand 
topics  on  which  the  apostles  insisted  in  the  course  of 
their  ministry — Repentance  towards  God  and  faith  to- 
wards our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Let  us  then  fix  upon 
these  great  oul lines  of  the  apostolic  testimony,  and  ex- 
amine which  of  the  systems  in  question  has  the  greatest 
tendency  to  produce  them. 

Repentance  is  a  change  of  mind.  It  arises  from  a 
conviction  that  we  have  been  in  the  wrong  ;  and  consists 
in  holy  shame,  grief  and  self*. loathing,  accompanied 
with  a  determination  to  forsake  every  evil  way.  Each 
of  these  ideas  is  included  in  the  account  we  have  of  the 
repentance  of  Job.*  Behold,  I  am  vile ;  what  shall  I 
answer  thee  ?  1  will  lay  my  hand  upon  my  mouths 
Once  have  I  spoken,  but  I  will  not  answer  ;  yea  twice, 
hut  I  will  proceed  no  farther — /  abhor  myself,  and 
repent  in  dust  and  ashes.  It  is  essential  to  such  a 
change  as  this,  that  the  sinner  realizes  the  evil  nature  of 
sin.  No  man  ever  yet  repented  of  a  fault,  without  a 
conviction  of  its  evil  nature.  Sin  must  appear  exceed^ 
ing  sinful,  before  we  can,  in  the  nature  of  things,  abhor 
it,  and  ourselves  on  account  of  it.  Those  sentiments 
which  wrought  upon  the  heart  of  David,  and  brought 
him  to  repentance,  were  of  this  sort.  Throughout  the 
fifty  first  Psalm  we  find  him  deeply  impressed  with  the 
evil  of  sin,  and  that  considered  as  an  offence  against 
God.  He  had  injured  Uriah  and  Bathsheba,  and  strict- 
ly speaking  had  not  injured   God,   the  essential  honour 

•   Chap.  xl.  4.    xlii.  6. 


LET.    2.]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  23 

and  happiness  of  the  divine  nature  being  infinitely 
beyond  his  reach  ;  yet  as  all  sin  strikes  at  the  divine 
glory,  and  actually  degrades  it  in  the  esteem  of  crea- 
tures, all  sin  is  to  be  considered  in  one  vitiw,  as  commit- 
ted against  God;  and  this  view  of  the  subject  lay  so 
near  his  heart  as  to  swallow  up  every  other.  Against 
THEE,  THEE  ONLY  have  I  Sinned,  and  done  this  evil  in 
thy  sight !  It  follows,  then,  that  the  system  which 
affords  the  most  enlarged  views  of  the  evil  of  sin,  must 
needs  have  the  greatest  tendency  to  promote  repent- 
ance for  it. 

Those  who  embrace  the  Calvinistic  system  believe, 
that  man  was  originally  created  holy  and  happy — that 
of  his  own  accord  he  departed  from  God,  and  became 
vile — that  God  being  in  himself  infinitely  amiable,  de- 
serves to  be,  and  is,  the  moral  centre  of  the  intelligent 
system — that  rebellion  against  him  is  opposition  to  the 
general  good — that,  if  suffered  to  operate  according  to 
its  tendency,  it  would  destroy  the  well-being  of  the  uni- 
verse, by  excluding  God,  and  ^ighteousness,^and  peace, 
from  the  whole  system — that,  seeing  it  aims  destruc- 
tion at  universal  good,  and  tends  to  universal  anarchy 
and  mischief,  it  is  in  those  respects  an  infinite  evil,  and 
deserving  of  endless  punishment — and  that,  in  whatever 
instance  God  exercises  forgiveness,  it  is  not  without  re- 
spect to  that  public  expression  of  his  displeasure  ao^ainst 
it,  which  was  uttered  in  the  death  of  his  Son.  These, 
brethren,  are  sentiments  which  furnish  us  with  motives 
for  self-abhorrence  :  under  their  influence  millions  have 
repented  in  dust  and  ashes. 

But  those,  on  the  other  hfind,  who  embrace  the  So^ 
cinian  system,  entertain  diminutive  notions  of  the  evil 
of  sin.  They  consider  all  evil  propensities  in  men, 
(except  those  which  are  accidentally  contracted  by,  edu- 


24  THE   CONVERSION  [lET.   2. 

cation  or  example)  as  being  in  every  sense  natural  to 
them,  supposing  that  they  were  originally  created  with 
them  :  they  cannot,  therefore,  be  offensive  to  God,  un- 
less he  could  be  offended  with  the  work  of  his  own  hands 
for  being  what  he  made  it.  Hence,  it  may  be,  Sjcinian 
writers,  when  speaking  of  the  sins  of  men,  describe  them 
in  the  language  of  palliation  ;  language  tending  to  con- 
vey an  idea  of  pity,  but  not  of  blame.  Mr.  Belsharn, 
speaking  of  sin,  calls  it,  "  human  frailty  ;''  and 
the  subjects  of  it,  '*  the  frail  and  erring  children  of 
men.^'*  The  following  positions  are  for  substance 
maintained  by  Dr.  Priestley  in  his  treatise  on  Necessity : 
**  That  for  any  thing  we  know,  it  might  have  been  as 
impossible  for  God  to  make  all  men  sinless  and  happy, 
as  to  have  made  them  infinite.'' — That  all  the  evil  there 
is  in  sin,  arises  from  its  tendency  to  injure  the  creature 
— That  if  God  punish  sin,  it  is  not  because  he  is  so 
displeased  with  it  as  in  any  case  to  *'  take  vengeance'* 
on  the  sinner,  sacrificing  his  happiness  to  the  good  of 
the  whole  ;  but,  knowing  that  it  tends  to  do  the  sinner 
harm,  he  pu^;s  him  to  temporary  pain,  not  only  for  the 
warning  of  others,  but  for  his  own  good,  with  a  view  to 
correct  the  bad  «lisposition  in  him. — That  what  is  threat- 
ened against  sin  is  of  such  a  trifling  account,  that  it 
need  not  be  an  oV>ject  of  dread.  "No  ISecessarian," 
says  he,  '*  supposes  that  any  of  the  human  race  will 
suffer  eternally  ;  but  that  future  punishments  will  an- 
swer the  same  purpose  as  temporal  ones  are  found  to 
do,  all  of  which  tend  to  good,  and  are  evidently  admitted 
for  that  purpose  ;  so  that  God,  the  author  of  all,  is 
as  much  to  be  adored  and  loved  for  what  we  suffer  as 
for  what  we  enjoy ^  his  intention  being  equally  kind  in 
both.     And  since  God  has  created   us  for  happiness, 

•  Sermon  on  the  Importance  of  Truth,  p.  33—35. 


LET.    2.]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  25 

what  misery  can  we  fear  ?  If  we  be  really  intended  for 
ultimate,  unlimited  happiness,  it  is  no  matter  to  a  truly 
resigned  person  tvhen,  or  where,  or  howy*  Sin  is  so 
trifling  an  affair,  it  seems,  and  the  punishment  threat- 
ened against  it  of  so  little  consequence,  that  we  may  be 
quite  resigned  and  indifferent,  whether  we  go  immedi- 
ately to  heaven,  or  whether  we  first  pass  through  the 
depths  of  hell  ! 

The  question  at  present  is  not,  Which  of  these  rep- 
resentations is  true,  or  consonant  to  scripture  ;  but» 
Which  has  the  greatest  tendency  to  promote  repentance  ? 
If  repentance  be  promoted  by  a  view  of  the  evil  of  sin, 
this  question,  it  is  presumed,  may  be  considered  as 
decided. 

Another  sentiment  intimately  connected  with  the  evil 
of  sin,  and  equally  necessary  to  promote  repentance,  is. 
The  equity  and  goodness  of  the  divine  law, — No  man 
ever  truly  repented  for  the  breach  of  a  law,  the  precepts 
of  which  he  considered  as  too  strict,  or  the  penalties  us 
too  severe.  In  proportion  as  such  an  opinion  prevails,  it 
is  impossible  but  that  repentance  must  be  precluded. 
Now  the  precept  of  the  divine  law  requires  us  to  love 
God  with  all  the  heart,  soul,  mind,  and  strength,  and 
our  neighbour  as  ourselves.  It  allows  not  of  any  devia- 
tion, or  relaxation,  during  the  whole  of  our  existence. 
The  penalty  by  which  this  holy  law  is  enforced,  is  noth- 
ing less  than  the  curse  of  Almighty  God.  But,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Belsham,  If  God  *«  mark  and  punish  every 
instance  of  transgression,"  he  must  be  a  '*  merciless 
tyrant  :'^  and  we  must  be  "  tempted  to  wish  that  the 
reins  of  universal  government  were  in  better  hands/'f 
Mr.  Belsham,  perhaps,  would  not  deny  that  perfect 
C 
*  Pag-es  118,  122,  65,  149,  150,  12S. 
f  Serm.  p.  34. 


26  THE    CONVERSION  [lET.    2. 

obedience  is  required  by  the  law,  according  to  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  words  by  which  it  is  expressed,  or  that 
the  curse  of  God  is  threatened  against  every  one  that 
continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law  to  do  them  ;  but  then  this  rule  is  so  strict,  that  to 
*' mark  and  punish  every  instance,'*  of  deviation  from  it, 
would  be  severe  and  cruel.  It  seems  then  that  God  has 
given  us  a  law,  by  the  terms  of  which  he  cannot  abide  ; 
.that  justice  itself  requires  him,  if  not  to  abate  the  pre- 
cept, yet  to  remit  the  penalty,  and  connive  at  smaller 
instances  of  transgression,  I  need  not  inquire  how 
much  this  reflects  upon  the  moral  character  and  govern- 
ment of  God.  Suffice  it  at  present  to  say,  that  such 
views  must  of  necessity  preclude  repentance.  If  the 
law  which  forbids  "  every  instance"  of  human  folly,  be 
unreasonably  strict,  and  the  penalty  which  threatens 
the  curse  of  the  Almighty  on  every  one  that  continueth 
not  in  all  things  therein  written,  be  indeed  cruel  ;  then 
it  must  so  far  be  unreasonable  for  any  sinner  to  be  re- 
quired to  repent  for  the  breach  of  it.  On  the  contrary, 
God  himself  should  rather  repent  for  making  such  a 
law,  than  the  sinner  for  breaking  it  ! 

Faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  another 
essential  part  of  true  conversion. — Faith  is  credence,  or 
belief.  Faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  belief 
of  the  gospel  of  salvation  through  his  name,  A  real 
belief  of  the  gospel  is  necessarily  accompanied  with  a 
trust  or  confidence  in  him  for  the  salvation  of  our  souls. 
The  term  believe  itself  sometimes  expresses  this  idea; 
particularly  in  2  Tim.  i,  12.  /  know  whom  I  have  be- 
lieved, and  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep 

THAT    WHICH  1  HAVE    COMMITTED    UNTO    HIM  against 

that  day.     This  belief,  or  trust,  can  never  be  fairly  un- 
derstood of  a  mere  confidence  in  his  veracity,  as  to  the 


LET.    2.]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  ^ 

truth  of  his  doctrine  ;  for,  if  that  were  all,  the  ahility 
of  Christ  would  stand  for  nothin^r  ;  and  we  might  as 
well  be  said  to  trust  in  Peter,  or  John,  or  Paul,  as  in 
Christ,  seeing  we  believe  their  testimony  to  be  valid  as 
well  as  his.  Believing,  it  is  granted,  does  not  necessa- 
rily, and  in  all  cases,  involve  the  idea  of  triist,  for  which 
1  here  contend  ;  this  matter  being  determined  by  the 
nature  of  the  testimony.  Neither  Peter,  nor  any  of  the 
apostles,  ever  pretended  that  their  blood,  though  it 
might  be  shed  in  martyrdom,  would  be  the  price  of  the 
salvation  of  sinners.  We  may  therefore  credit  their 
testimony,  without  trusting  in  them,  or  committivg  any 
thing,  as  Paul  expresses  it,  into  their  hands.  But 
Christ's  blood  is  testiiied  of,  as  the  way,  and  the  only 
way  of  salvation.  He  is  said  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins  ;  and  hy  himself  to  have  purged-  our  sins — 
Through  his  blood  ice  have  forgiveness — Neither  is  there 
salvation  in  any  other  ;  for  there  is  none  other  name 
under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saV" 
ed — Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid, 
which  is  Jesus  Christ,*  Hence  it  follows,  that  to  be- 
lieve his  testimony,  must  of  necessity  involve  in  it  a 
trusting  in  him  for  the  salvation  of  our  souls. 

If  this  be  a  just  representation  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 
we  cannot  be  at  a  loss  to  decide  which  of  the  systems  in 
question  has  the  greatest  tendency  to  promote  it ;  and, 
as  faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  essential  to 
true  conversion,  we  cannot  hesitate  in  concluding, 
which  has  the  greatest  tendency  to  turn  a  sinner  from 
the  evil  of  his  ways.  Not  to  mention,  at  present,  how 
Socinian  writers  disown  an  **  implicit  belief''  in  the 
testimony  of  the  sacred  writers, f   and    how  they  lean  to 

•  1  John  iv.  10.  Heb.  i.  3.  Eph.  i  7.   Acts  iv.  12.  1  Cor.  iii.  11. 
t  Dr.  Priestley's  Def.  of  Unit,  for  irsr,  p.  66» 


^  THE    CONVERSION  [LET.    2, 

their  own  understanding,  as  the  criterion  by  which 
scripture  is  to  be  tried  ;  that  which  I  would  here  insist 
upon  is,  That,  upon  their  principles,  all  trust  or  con- 
fidence in  Christ  for  salvation  is  utterly  excluded. 
IVot  only  are  those  principles  unadapted  to  induce  us 
to  trust  in  Christ  ;  but  directly  tend  to  turn  off  our 
attention  and  affection  from  hira.  Dr.  Priestley  does 
not  appear  to  consider  him  as  the  way  of  a  sinner  s  sal- 
vation in  any  sense  whatever,  but  goes  about  to  explain 
the  words  of  Peter,  (Acts  iv.  12.)  Neither  is  there  sal- 
vation in  any  other,  Sfc.  not  of  **  salvation  to  eternal 
life,"  but  **  of  salvation  or  deliverance  from  bodily 
diseases."*  And  another  writer  (Dr.  Harwood) 
oi'  the  same  cast,  in  a  volume  of  Sermons  lately 
published,  treats  the  sacred  writers  with  still  less 
ceremony.  Paul  had  said.  Other  foundation  can  no 
man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ ;  but 
this  writer,  as  if  he  designed  to  affront  the  apostle, 
makes  use  of  his  own  words  in  order  to  contradict  him. 
*^  Other  foundation  than  this  can  no  man  hiy,"  says  he, 
'*  other  expectations  are  visionary,  and  groundless,  and 
all  hopes  founded  upon  anything  else  than  a  good  moral 
life,  are  merely  imaginary,  and  contrary  to  the  whole 
ttiior  of  the  gospel. "f  Whether  these  things  be  not 
aimed  to  raze  the  foundation  on  which  the  church  is 
l)uilt  ;  and  whether  this  be  any  other  than  stumbling  at 
the  stumbling-stone,  and  a  setting  him  at  nought,  in  the 
o-reat  affair  for  which  he  came  into  the  world,  let  every 
christian  judge.  It  particularly  deserves  the  serious 
(onsideration,  not  only  of  the  above  writers,  but  of  those 
wlio  are  any  way  inclined  to  their  mode  of  thinking  : 
]*'or  if  it  should  be  so  that  the  death  of  Christ,  as  a 
pror)itiutory    sacrifice,    is    the    only    medium    through 

*   Fam.   T.oUei-s.   IM    XIV.  t   I'^n^'^   l^-^- 


LET.  2.}  OF    PROFLIGATES*  39 

which  sinners  can  be  accepted  of  God  ;  and  if  they 
should  be  found  fighting  against  God  and  rejecting 
the  only  way  of  escape,  the  consequence  may  be  such 
as  to  cause  the  ears  of  every  one  that  heareth  it  to  tin- 
gle. Meanwhile,  it  requires  but  little  penetration  to 
discover,  that  whatever  takes  away  the  only  foundation 
of  a  sinner's  confidence  cannot  be  adapted  to  promote  it* 

Brethren  1  Examine  these  matters  to  the  bottom, 
and  judge  for  yourselves,  whether  you  might  not  as  well 
expect  grapes  of  thorns,  or  tigs  of  thistles,  as  to  see  re- 
pentance  towards  God,  or  faith  towards  our  Lord  Jcbus 
Christ,  proceeding  from  Socinian  principles. 

The  foregomg  observations  serve  to  show  what  may 
he  expected  from  the  Socinian  doctrine,  according  to  the 
nature  of  things  ;  let  us  next  make  some  inquiry  into 
matters  of  fact.  We  may  judge  from  the  nature  of  th^ 
seed  sown  what  will  be  the  harvest  :  but  a  view  of  what 
the  harvest  actually  is,  may  afford  still  greater 
satisfaction. 

First,  then.  Let  it  be  considered  whether  Sociniai> 
congregations  have  ever  abounded  in  conversions  of  the 
proiane  to  a  life  of  holiness  and  devotedness  to  God.— 
Dr.  Priestley  acknowledges  that  *'  the  gospel,  when  it 
was  first  preached  by  the  apostles,  profiuced  a  wonder- 
ful change  in  the  lives  ^nd  ipa,npers  of  persons  of  all 
ages."*  Now  if  the  doctrine  which  he  and  others^ 
preach,  be  the  same  for  subsst^nce  a«  that  which  they 
preached,  one  might  expeict  tQ  see  some  considerable 
degree  of  similarity  in  the  effects.  But  is  any  thing- 
like this  to  be  seen  in  Socinian  congregations  ?  Ha9^ 
that  kind  of  preaching  which  l^a>;es  pat  the  doctriaes^  eT 
man's  lost  condition  by  nature,,  and  salvatioa  by  p-ra^*- 

e  2 

♦  I*^tu  to  3.  i?Mt  Uub.  Frjef.  p.  i& 


oU  THE   CONVERSIOISr  [LET.    '-i. 

only,  through  the  atonement  of  Christ ;  and  substitutes, 
in  their  place,  the  doctrine  of  mercy  without  an  atone- 
ment, the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,  the  efficacy  of 
repentance,  and  obedience,  &.c. — has  this  kind  of 
preaching,  I  say,  ever  been  known  to  lay  much  hold  on 
the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men  f  The  way  in  which 
that  •'  wonderful  change'*  was  effected,  in  the  lives  and 
manners  of  people,  which  attended  the  first  preaching  of 
the  gospel,  was,  by  the  word  preached  laying  hold  on 
their  hearts*  It  was  a  distinguishing  mark  of  primitive 
preaching,  that  it  commetided  itself  to  every  man^s  con^ 
science.  People  could  not  in  general  sit  unconcerned 
under  it.  We  are  told  of  some  who  were  cut  to  the 
heartf  and  took  counsel  to  slay  the  preachers  ;  and  of 
others  who  were  pricked  in  the  heart,  and  said.  Men  and 
brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?  But  in  both  cases  the  heart 
was  the  mark  at  which  the  preacher  aimed,  and  which 
his  doctrine  actually  reached.  Has  the  preaching  of 
the  Socinians  any  such  effect  as  this  ?  Do  they  so  much 
as  expect  it  should  ?  Were  any  of  their  hearers,  by  any 
means,  to  feel  pricked  in  their  hearts,  and  come  to  them 
with  the  question,  What  shall  we  do  ?  would  they  not 
pity  them  as  enthusiasts,  and  be  ready  to  suspect  that 
they  had  been  among  the  Calvjnists  ?  If  any  counsel 
were  given,  would  it  not  be  such  as  should  tend  to  im- 
pede their  repentance,  rather  than  promote  it ;  and  in- 
stead of  directing  them  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  was  the  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  preachers,  would  they  not  endeav- 
our to  lead  them  into  another  course  ? 

Socinian  writers  cannot  so  much  sls  pretend,  that  their 
doctrine  ha«a  been  used  to  convert  profligate  sinners  to 
the  love  of  God  and  holiness.  Dr.  Priestley's  scheme 
will  not  enable  him  to  account  for  such  changes  where 
Christianity  '  ^s  ceased  to  be  a  novelty.     The  absolute 


J.ET.  2.]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  31 

novelty  of  the  gospel  when  first  preached,  he  represents 
as  the  cause  of  its  wonderful  efficacy  ;  but  in  the  pres- 
ent age,  among  persons  who  have  long  heard  it,  and 
have  contracted  vicious  habits  notwithstanding,  he  looks 
for  no  such  effects.  He  confe^ses  himself  *'  less  solicit- 
ous aboiit  the  conversion  of  unbelievers  who  are  much 
advanced  in  life,  than  of  younger  persons,  and  that  be- 
cause he  despairs  of  the  principles  of  Christianity  having 
much  effect  upon  the  lives  of  those  whose  dispositions 
and  habits  are  already  formed.'**  Sometimes  he  reck- 
ons that  the  great  body  of  primitive  christians  must  have 
been  *' well-disposed  with  respect  to  moral  virtue,  even 
before  their  conversion  to  Christianity  ;  else,  (he  thinks) 
they  could  not  have  been  so  ready  to  have  abandoned 
their  vices,  and  to  embrace  a  doctrine  which  required 
the  strictest  purity  and  rectitude  of  conduct,  and  even 
to  sacrifice  their  lives  in  the  cause  of  truth. '*t  In  his 
treatise  on  Philosophical  Necessity,  he  declares,  that, 
**  upon  the  principles  of  the  Necessarian,  all  late  re- 
pentance, and  especially  after  long  and  confirmed  habits 
of  vice,  is  altogether  and  necessarily  meffectual,  there 
not  being  sufficient  time  left  to  produce  a  change  of 
disposition  and  character,  which  can  only  be  done  by  a 

•  Letters  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Part  II,  Pre/.  It  is  true,  Dr  Priest- 
ley  is  not  here  speaking  of  the  proflig-ates  among'  nominal 
christians,  but  of  those  among  avowed  infidels  This,  however, 
makes  nothing  to  the  argument.  The  dispositions  and  habits 
of  profane  nominal  christians,  are  as  much  formed  as  those  of 
avowed  infidels  ;  and  their  conversion  to  a  holy  life  is  as  much 
an  object  of  despair  as  the  other.  Yea,  Dr.  Priestley  in  the 
same  place  acknowledges,  that,  "to  be  mere  nominal  christian* 
is  worse  than  to  be  no  christians  at  all.** 

t  Let.  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Pt.  ii.  p.  167,  16a 


39  THE    CONVERSION  LlET.  2. 

chan^^e  of  conduct,   and   of  proportionably  loug  con- 
tiuuiiiice."* 

I  confess,  I  do  not  perceive  the  consistency  of  these 
passages  with  each  other.  By  the  power  of  novelty^ 
woijderful  change  was  produced  in  the  lives  and  man- 
ners of  men  ;  and  yet  the  body  of  them  must  have  been 
well-disposed  with  respect  to  moral  virtue  ;  that  is, 
they  must  have  been  in  such  a  state  as  not  to  need  any 
wonderful  change,  else  they  could  not  have  been  so 
ready  to  abandon  their  vices.  A  wonderful  change  was 
produced  in  the  lives  and  manners  of  men  of  all  ages  ; 
^nd  yet  there  is  a  certain  age  in  which  repentance  is 
*^  altogether  and  necessarily  ineffectual/'  Inconsistent, 
however,  as  these  positions  may  be,  one  thing  is  suffi- 
ciently evident  ;  viz.  That  the  author  considers  the 
conversion  of  profligates,  of  the  present  age,  as  an  ob- 
ject of  despair.  Whatever  the  gospel  according  to 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  or  John  may  affirm,  that,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Priestley,  affords  but  very  little,  if  any, 
hope  to  those  who  in  scripture  are  distinguished  by  the 
Dame  of  sinners,  chief  of  sinners,  and  lost.  He  does 
**  not  expect  such  conversion  of  profligate,  and  habitu- 
^ly  wicked  men,  as  shall  make  any  reniarkable  change 
in  their  lives  and  characters.  Their  dispositions  and 
babits  are  already  formed,  so  that  it  can  hardly  be  sup- 
posed to  be  in  the  power  of  new  and  better  principles 
to  change  them.*'  It  cannot  be  unnatural,  or  uncan- 
did,  to  suppose  that  these  observations  were  made  from 
experience  ;  or  that  Dr.  Priestley  writes  in  this  manner 
on  account  of  his  not  being  used  to  see  any  such  effects 
arise  from  his  ministry  or  the  ministry  of  those  of  his 
sentiments. 

There   is  a   sort  of  preaching,  however,  even  since 
the  days  of  inspiration,   and   where   Christianity   hath 

•  Page  156. 


LET.  2.]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  33 

ceased  to  be  a  no «^/f^,  which  has  been  attended,  in  a 
good  degree,  with  similar  eftects  to  that  of  the  apos- 
tles. Whatever  was  the  cause,  or  however  it  is  to  be 
accounted  for,  there  have  been  those  whose  labours 
have  turned  many,  yea,  many  proJiigateSf  to  righteous- 
ness ;  and  that  by  preaching  the  very  doctrines  which 
Dr.  Priestley  charges  with  being  the  *'  corruptions  of 
Christianity;''  and  which  a  once  humble  admirer  of 
his  attempted  to  ridicule.*  It  is  well  known  what 
sort  of  preaching  it  was  that  produced  such  great 
effects  in  many  nations  of  Europe,  about  the  time  of 
the  Reformation.  Whatever  different  sentiments  were 
professed  by  the  Reformers,  I  suppose  they  were  so 
far  agreed,  that  the  doctrines  of  human  depravity,  the 
deity  and  atonement  of  Christ,  justihcation  by  faith* 
and  sanctification  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
were  the  great  topics  of  their  ministry. 

Since  the  reformation  there  have  been  special  sea- 
sons in  the  churches,  in  which  a  religious  concern 
has  greatly  prevailed,  and  multitudes  were  turned  from 
their  evil  ways  ;  some  from  an  open  course  of  profane- 
ness,  and  others  from  the  mere  form  of  godliness  to 
the  power  of  it.  Much  of  this  sort  of  success  attended 
the  labours  of  Perkins,  Bolton,  Taylor,  Herbert* 
Plildersham,  Blackerby,  Gou^e,  Witaker,  Bunyan, 
great  numbers  of  the  ejected  ministers,  and  many  since 
their  time  in  England  ;  of  Livingstone,  Bruce, 
Rutherford,  M'Cullock,  M'Laurin,  Robe,  Balfour, 
Sutherland  and  others  in  Scotland  ;  of  Franck,  and 
his  fellow-labourers,  in  Germany  ;  and  of  Stoddard, 
Edwards,  Buel,  Tennant,  and  many  others  in  Amer- 
ica.f     And    what    Dr.   AVatts  and  Dr.  Guyse  said    of 

*  See  Familiar  Letters.     Lett.  xxii.  P   S. 
I  See  Gillies*  Historical  Collections. 


34  THE    CONVERSION  [lET.,  2. 

the  success  of  Mr.  Edwards,  and  some  others,  in 
America,  might  with  equal  truth  have  been  said  of 
the  rest  :  **  That  it  was  the  common  phiin  Protes- 
tant doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  without  stretching 
towards  the  Antinomians  on  the  one  side,  or  the  Ar- 
minians  On  the  other,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  had 
been  pleased  to  honour  with  such  illustrious  success."* 
Nor  are  such  effects  peculiar  to  past  ages.  A 
considerable  degree  of  the  same  kind  of  success  has 
attended  the  Calvinistic  churches  in  North  America, 
within  the  last  ten  years  ;  especially  in  the  States  of 
Virginia,  the  Carolinas,  and  Georgia.f  Nor  is  it  pe- 
culiar to  the  AVestern  world,  though  they  have  been 
greatly  favoured.  I  believe  there  are  hundreds  of 
ministers  now  in  this  kingdom,  some  in  the  estab- 
lished church,  and  some  out  of  it,  who  could  truly 
say  to  a  considerable  number  of  their  auditors,  as 
Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians  ;  Ye  are  our  epistle ^ 
known  and  read  of  all  men — ye  are  manifestly  declare 
ed  to  he  the  epistle  of  Christ,  ministered  by  us,  writ' 
ten  not  with  ink,  hut  with  the  Spirit  of  the  living 
God  :  not  in  tables  of  stone,  hut  in  fleshly  tables  of 
the  heart.  There  are  likewise  hundreds  of  congrega- 
tions which  might  with  propriety  be  addressed  in  the 
language  of  the  same  apostle  to  the  same  people  ; 
And  such  were  some  of  you  ;  (namely,  fornicators, 
adulterers,  thieves,  covetous,  drunkards,  revilers,  ex- 
tortioners,) hut  ye  are  washed,  hut  ye  are  sanctified, 
hut  ye  are  justified.  And  those  ministers  by  whose 
instrumentality  these  effects  were  produced,  like  tbeir 
predecessors  before  mentioned,  have  dwelt  principally 
on  the  Protestant  doctrines  of  man's  lost  condition  by 

*   Pref  to  Mr.   Edwards'    Narrative. 
I  See  Rippon*s  Baptist  Register,  for  1790,  ]?art  I,  II. 


LET.  2.]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  ft5 

nature,  and  salvation  by  grace  onU',  tb rough  the 
atoning  blood  of  Christ  ;  together  with  the  necessity  of 
the  regenerating  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  When, 
therefore,  they  see  such  effects  attend  their  labours, 
they  think  themselves  warranted  to  ascribe  them,  as 
the  apostle  did,  to  the  name  oj' the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
to  the  Spirit  of  our  God.* 

The  solid  and  valuable  effects  produced  by  this 
kind  of  preaching  are  attested  by  the  late  Mr.  Rob- 
inson of  Cambridge,  as  well  as  by  Dr.  Watts,  and 
Dr.  Guyse.  "  Presumption  and  despair,*'  said  that 
ingenious  writer,  **  are  the  two  dangerous  extremes 
to  which  mankind  are  prone  in  religious  concerns. 
Charging  home  sin  precludes  the  first,  proclaiming 
redemption  prevents  the  last.  This  has  been  the 
method  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  thought  fit  to  seal 
and  succeed  in  the  hands  of  his  ministers.  Wickliffe, 
Lather,  Knox,  Latimer,  Gilpin,  Bunyan,  Living- 
stone, Franck,  Blair,  Elliot,  Edwards,  Whitefield, 
Tenoant,  and  all  who  have  been  eminently  blessed 
to  the  revival  of  practical  godliness,  have  constantly 
availed  themselves  of  this  method  ;  and,  prejudice 
apart,  it  is  impossible  to  deny,  that  great  and  ex- 
cellent moral   effects  have  followed. "f 

Should  it  be  alleged  that  Mr,  Robinson,  before  he 
died,  changed  his  opinions  in  these  matters,  and  reck- 
oned all  such  things  as  these  enthusiasm  ;  it  might  be 
answered,  A  change  of  opinion  in  Mr.  Robinson  can 
make  no  change  in  the  "facts,"  as  he  justly  calls 
them,  which  he  did  himself  the  honour  to  record. 
Besides,  the  effects  of  this  kind  of  preaching  are  not 
only   recorded  by  Mr,  Robinson,   but  by   those   wh© 

•  2  Cop.  iii   2,3.         1  Cor.  vi.  12. 
t  TransUtion  of  Claude,  Vol.  II,  p.  564.  Note. 


$6  THE    CONVERSION  (LET.  2. 

triumph  in  his  conversion  to  their  principles.  Dr. 
Priestley  professes  to  think  highly  of  the  Methodists, 
and  acknowledges  that  they  have  "  civilized  and 
christianized  a  great  part  of  the  uncivilized  and  un- 
christianized  part  of  this  country."*  Also,  in  his  Dis^ 
courses  on  Various  Subjects,  he  allows  their  preaching 
to  produce  "  more  striking  effects''  than  that  of  Socia- 
ians,  and  goes  about  to  account  for  it.f 

A  matter  of  fact  so  notorious  as  this,  and  of  so 
much  consequence  in  the  controversy,  requires  to  be 
well  accounted  for.  Dr.  Priestley  seems  to  have  felt 
the  force  of  the  objection  that  might  be  made  to  his 
principles  on  this  ground,  and  therefore  attempts  to 
obviate  it.  But  by  what  medium  is  this  attempted  ? 
The  same  principle  by  which  he  tries  to  account  for 
the  wonderful  success  of  the  gospel  in  the  primitive 
ages,  is  to  account  for  the  effects  produced  by  such 
preaching  as  that  of  the  Methodists  ;  The  ignorance 
of  their  auditors  giving  what  they  say  to  them  the 
force  of  NOVELTY.  The  Doctor  is  pleased  to  add, 
"  Our  people  having  in  general  been  brought  up  in 
habits  of  virtue,  such  great  changes  in  character  and 
conduct  are  less  necessary  in  their  case.":J: 

A  few  remarks  in  reply  to  the  above  shall  close 
this  Letter. — First,  If  novelty  be  indeed  that  efficacious 
principle  which  Dr*  Priestley  makes  it  to  be,  one 
should  think  it  were  desirable  every  century  or  two, 
at  least,  to  have  a  new  dispensation  of  religion. 

Secondly,  If  the  great  success  of  the  primitive 
preachers  was  owing  to  this  curious  cause.  Is  it  not 
extraordinary  that  they  themselves  should  never  be 
acquainted  with  it,  or  communicate  a  secret  of  such 

»  Fam .  Letters,  Lett.  vii.  f  P^&e  375. 

4^  Discourse*  on  Various  Subjects,'  p.  :^75. 


LET.  2.]  OF    PaeFLIGATES.  9V 

importance  to  their  successors?  They  are  not  only 
silent  about  it,  but  in  some  cases  appear  to  act  upon 
a  contrary  principle.  Paul,  when  avowing  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  his  ministry  before  Agrippa,  seemed 
to  disclaim  every  thing  novel ;  declaring  that  he  had 
said  none  other  things  than  those  which  the  prophets 
and  Moses  did  say  should  come*  And  as  to  the  cause 
of  their  success,  they  seem  never  to  have  thought 
of  any  thing  but  the  hand  of  the  Lord  that  was  with 
them — The  working  of  his  mighty  power — Who  cauS" 
ed  them  to  triumph  in  Christy  making  manifest  the 
savour  of  his  knowledge  by  them  in  every  place,*^ 

Thirdly,  If  novelty  be  what  Dr.  Priestley  makes  it 
to  be,  the  plea  of  Dives  had  much  more  of  truth  in  it 
than  the  answer  of  Abraham.  He  pleaded  that  if  one 
rose  from  the  dead  men  would  repent ;  the  novelty  of 
the  thing,  he  supposed,  must  strike  them.  But  Abra- 
ham answered,  as  if  he  had  no  notion  of  the  power  of 
mere  novelty ;  Jf  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  Proph^ 
etSy  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rise 
from  the  dead. 

Fourthly,  If  the  success  of  the  apostles  was  owing  to 
the  novelty  of  theic. mission,  it  might  have  been  expected 
that  at  Athens,  where  a  taste  for  hearing  and  telling  of 
new  things  occupied  the  whole  attention  of  the  people, 
their  success  would  have  been  the  greatest.  Every 
body  knows  that  a  congeniality  of  mind  in  an  audience, 
to  the  things  proposed,  wonderfully  facilitates  the  re- 
ception of  them.  Now,  as  the  gospel  was  as  much  of 
a  novelty  to  them  as  to  the  most  barbarous  nations, 
and  as  they  were  possessed  of  a  peculiar  turn  of  mind 
which  delighted  in  every  thing  of  that  nature,  it  might 
D 

*  Acts  xii.  21.    EpheXj.  19.    2  Cor.  ii.  U. 


38  THE    CONTERSION  [lET.  5, 

have  been  expected,  on  the  above  hypothesis,  that  a 
harvest  of  souls  would  there  have  been  gathered  in* 
But  instead  of  this,  the  gospel  is  well  known  to  have 
been  less  successful  in  this  famous  city  than  in  many 
other  places. 

Fifthly,  Some  of  the  most  striking  effects,  both  in 
early  and  later  ages,  were  not  accompanied  with  the 
circumstance  of  novelty.  The  sermon  of  Peter  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem*  contained  no  new  doctrine  ; 
it  only  pressed  upon  them  the  same  things  for  sub- 
stance which  they  had  heard  and  rejected  from  the  Vips 
of  Christ  himself;  and,  on  a  pre-judgment  of  the  issue 
by  the  usual  course  of  things,  they  would  probably 
have  been  considered  as  more  likely  to  reject  Peter's 
doctrine  than  that  of  Christ;  because  when  once  peo- 
ple have  set  their  hands  to  a  business,  they  are  gener- 
ally more  loth  to  relinquish  it  and  own  themselves  in  the 
wrong,  than  at  first  to  forbear  to  engage  in  it.  And  as 
to  later  times,  the  effects  produced  by  the  preaching  of 
Whitefield,  Edwards,  and  others,  were  many  of  them 
upon  people  not  remarkably  ignorant,  but  who  had 
attended  such  kind  of  preaching  all  their  lives  without 
any  such  effect.  The  former,  it  is  well  known,  preached 
the  same  doctrines  in  Scotland  and  America,  as  the 
people  were  used  to  hear  every  Lord's-day  ;  and  that 
with  great  effect  among  persons  of  a  lukewarm,  and 
careless  description.  The  latter,  in  his  JSarrativetof 
the  tvork  of  God  in  and  about  Northampton,  represents 
the  inhabitants  as  having  been  "  a  rational  and  under- 
standing people."  Indeed  they  must  have  been  sucli, 
or  they  could  not  have  understood  the  compass  of  ar- 
gument contained  in  Mr.  Edwards'  Sermons  on  Jvsti- 
fication,  which  were  delivered  about  that  time,  and  are 

•  Acts  ii. 


LET.  ^,]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  39 

said  to  have  been  the  means  of  great  religious  concern 
among  the  hearers*  Nor  were  these  effects  produced 
by  airs  and  gestures,  or  any  of  those  extraordinary 
things  in  the  manner  of  the  preacher,  which  give  a  kind 
of  novelty  to  a  sermon,  and  sometimes  .tend  to  move 
the  affections  of  the  hearers.  Mr.  Prince^  who  it  seems 
had  often  heard  Mr.  Edwards  preach,  and  observed  the 
remarkable  conviction  which  attended  his  ministry,  de- 
scribes in  his  Christian  History  his  manner  of  preaching. 
*'  He  was  a  preacher,'*  says  he,  **  of  a  low  and  moder- 
ate voice,  a  natural  delivery,  and  without  any  agitation 
of  body,  or  any  thing  else  in  the  manner  to  excite  atten- 
tion, except  his  habitual  and  great  solemnity,  looking 
and  speaking  as  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  with  a 
weighty  sense  of  the  matter  delivered."* 

Sixthly,  Suppose  the  circumstance  of  novelty  to 
have  great  efficacy,  the  question  is,  with  respect  to 
such  preaching  as  that  of  the  Methodists,  Whether  it 
has  efficacy  enough  to  render  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
of  no  account  ?  It  is  well  known  that  the  main  doc- 
trines which  the  Methodists  have  taught,  are,  3Ian*s 
lost  condition  by  nature,  and  salvation  by  the  atone^ 
ment  of  Christ ;  but  these,  according  to  Dr.  Priestley, 
are  false  doctrines  ;  no  part  of  Christianity,  but  the 
*' corruptions"  of  it;  and  "  such  as  must  tend,  if  they 
have  any  effect,  to  relax  the  obligations  to  virtue." 
But  if  so.  How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  preaching  of 
them  should  "  civilize  and  christianize  mankind  ?" 
Novelty  may  do  wonders,  it  is  granted;  but  still  the 
nature  of  those  wonders  will  correspond  with  the  na- 
ture of  the  principles  taught.  All  that  it  can  be  sup- 
posed to  do,  is  to  give  additional  energy  to  the  principles 
which  it  accompanies.  The  heating  of  a  furnace  seven 
times  hotter  than  usual,   would  not  endue  it  with  the 

•  Gillies'  Hist.  Collections,  vol.  ii.  p.  196. 


40  THE    CONVERSION  [lET.    2. 

properties  of  water  ;  and  water  put  into  the  most  pow- 
erful motion,  would  not  be  capable  of  producing  the 
effects  of  fire.  One  would  think  it  were  equally  evi- 
dent, that  falsehood,  though  accompanied  with  novelty, 
could  never  have  the  effect  of  truth. 

Once  more:  It  may  be  quetioned.  Whether  the  gen- 
erality of  people  who  make  up  Socinian  congregations, 
stand  in  less  need  of  a  change  of  character  and  con- 
duct than  others?  Mr.  Belsham  says,  that  <' rational 
christians  are  often  represented  as  indifferent  to  prac- 
tical religion ;"  and  admits,  though  with  apparent 
reluctance,  that  "  there  has  been  some  plausible  ground 
ibr  the  accusation."  Dr,  Priestley  admits  the  same 
thing,  and  they  both  go  about  to  account  for  it  in  the 
same  way,*  Now  whether  their  method  of  accounting 
for  it  be  just  or  not,  they  admit  the  fact;  and  from 
lience  we  may  conclude,  that  the  generality  of  **  ra- 
tional christians"  are  not  so  righteous  as  to  need  no  re- 
pentance ;  and  that  the  reason  why  their  preaching  does 
not  turn  sinners  to  righteousness,  is  not  owing  to  their 
want  of  an  equal  proportion  of  sinners  to  be  turned. 

But,  supposing  the  Socinian  congregations  were 
generally  so  virtuous  as  to  need  no  great  change  of 
character  ;  or  if  they  did,  so  well  infornfed  that  noth- 
ing could  strike  them  as  a  novelty  ;  that  is  not  the 
case  with  the  bulk  of  mankind  amongst  whom  they 
live.  Now,  if  a  great  change  of  character  may  be 
produced  by  the  mere  power  of  novelty,  Why  do  not 
Dr.  Priestley,  and  those  of  his  sentiments,  go  forth, 
like  some  others,  to  the  kighivays  and  hedges  ?  Why- 
does  not  he  surprise  the  benighted  populace  into  the 
love  of  God   and  holiness,     witb  his  meiv    doctrines  ? 

*  Mr.  Bthham^s  Senn,  p.  32.  Dr.  Priestle/s  Discourses  on 
,'iir:oi{s  SuhjcctSy  p.  95. 


LET.  2.]  OF    PROFLIGATES.  41 

(New  he  must  acknowledge  they  are  to  them.)  If 
false  doctrine,  such  as  that  which  the  Methodists  have 
taught,  may,  through  the  power  of  novelty,  do  such 
wonders,  what  might  not  be  expected  from  the  true  ? 
I  have  been  told  that  Dr.  Priestley  has  expressed  a 
wish  to  go  into  the  streets,  and  preach  to  the  common 
people.  Let  him,  or  those  of  his  sentiments,  make 
the  trial.  Though  the  people  of  Birmingham  have 
treated  him  so  uncivilly,  I  hope  both  he  and  they 
would  meet  with  better  treatment  in  other  parts  of 
the  country  ;  and  if  by  the  power  of  novelty  they  can 
turn  but  a  few  sinners  from  the  error  of  their  ways, 
and  save  their  souls  from  death,  it  will  be  an  object 
warthy  of  their  attention. 

But  should  Dr.  Priestley,  or  any  others  of  his  sen- 
timents, go  forth  on  such  an  errand,  and  still  retain 
their  principles,  they  must  reverse  the  declaration  of 
our  Lord,  and  say,  We  come  not  to  call  sinners,  but 
the  righteous  to  repentance.  All  their  hope  must  be 
in  the  uncontaminated  youth,  or  the  better  sort  of 
people,  whose  habits  in  the  paths  of  vice  are  not  so 
strong  but  that  they  may  be  overcome.  Should  they, 
in  the  coarse  of  their  labours,  behold  a  malefactor 
approaching  the  hour  of  his  esecution,  What  must 
they  do  ?  Alas,  like  the  priest  and  the  Levite,  they 
must  pass  by  on  the  other  side.  They  could  not  sa 
much  as  admonish  him  to  repentance,  with  any  degree 
of  hope  ;  because  they  consider  *'  all  late  repentance, 
and  especially  aft^r  long  and  confirmed  habits^  of  vice, 
as  absolutely  and  necessarily  ineffectual."*  Ha{>. 
py  for  many  a  poor  wretch  of  that- description,,  happy 
D  2 

*See  Dr.Ppiestley's  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects^ p.  258; 
Also  his  doctrine  of  Phil,  Necessity,  p,  156- 


4^.  THE    CONVERSION  [lET.    3. 

especially   for    the  poor  thief    upon    the    cross,    that 
Jesus  Christ  acted  on  a  different  principle  I 

These,  brethren,  are  matters  that  come  within  the 
knowledge  of  every  man  of  observation  ;  and  it  be- 
hoves you  in  such  cases  to  know  not  the  speech  of  them 
that  are  pirffed  up,  but  the  power. 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  III. 

THE    SYSTEMS     COMPARED,     AS    TO    THEIR   TENDENCY 
TO    CONVERT    PROFESSED    UNBELIEVERS. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

SOCINIAN  writers  are  very  sanguine  on  the  ten- 
dency of  their  views  of  things  to  convert  infidels  ; 
uamely,  Jews,  Heathens  and  Mahometans.  They 
reckon  that  our  notions  of  the  Trinity,  form  the  grand 
obstacle  to  their  conversion.  Dr.  Priestley  often  sug- 
gests, that  so  long  as  we  maintain  the  Deity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  there  is  no  hope  of  converting  the  Jews,  be- 
cause this  doctrine  contradicts  the  first  principle  of 
their  religion,  the  unity  of  God,  Things,  not  alto- 
gether, but  nearly  similar,  are  said  concerning  the 
conversion  of  the  Heathens  and  Mahometans,  espec- 
ially the  latter.  On  this  subject  the  following  ob- 
servations are  submitted  to  your  oonsideration. 

With  respect  to  the  Jetos,  they  know  very  well 
that  those  who  believe  in  the  Deity  of  Christ,  profess 
to  believe  in  the  unity  of  God  ;  and  if  they  will  not 
admit  this  to  be  consistent,    they  must  depart  from 


LET.  3.]  OF  PROFESSED  UNBELIEVERS.  45 

what  is  plainly  implied  in  the  language  of  their  an- 
cestors. If  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  had  thought 
it  impossible,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  inconsistent 
with  the  unity  of  God,  that  God  the  Father  should 
have  a  Son  equal  to  himself,  flow  came  they  to  attach 
the  idea  of  equality  to  that  of  Sonship  ?  Jesus  asserted 
that  God  was  his  own  Father  ;  which  they  understood 
as  making  himself  equal  with  God ;  and  therefore 
sought  to  kill  him  as  a  blasphemer.*  Had  the  Jews 
affixed  those  ideas  to  sonship  which  are  entertained 
by  our  opponents,  namely,  as  implying  nothing  mor6 
than  simple  humanity.  Why  did  they  accuse  Jesus  of 
blasphemy  for  assuming  it  ?  They  did  not  deny  that, 
to  be  God's  own  Son,  was  to  be  equal  with  the  Fath- 
er ;  nor  did  they  allege  that  such  an  equality  would 
destroy  the  divine  unity  ;  a  thought  of  this  kind  seemft 
never  to  have  occurred  to  their  minds.  The  idea 
to  which  they  objected  was.  That  Jesus  of  T^azareik 
tvas  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  hence,  it  is  probable,  the 
profession  of  this  great  article  was  considered  in  the 
apostolic  age  as  the  criterion  of  Christianity. f  Were 
this  article  admitted  by  the  modern  Jews,  they  must 
reason  differently  from  their  ancestors,  if  they  scrupled 
to  admit  that  Christ  is  equal  with  the  Fatlier. 

The  Jews  were  greatly  offended  at  our  Lord's 
words  ;  and  his  not  explaining  them  so  as  to  remove 
the  stumbling-block  out  of  the  way,  may  serve  to  teach 
us  how  we  ought  to  proceed  in  removing  stumbling- 
blocks  out  of  the  way  of  their  posterity.  For  this  cause 
they  soufj^ht  to  kill  him — because  he  had  said  that  God 
was  his  Father^  making  himself  equal  with  god. 
ifesus  saidj  I  and  my  Father  are  one.  They  then  took 
up  stones  to  stone  him*     When   he  told  them    oi' many 

*  John  V.  18.  t  Acts  viii.  27. 


44  THE   CONVERSION  [l-ET*   3. 

good  works  that  he  had  shewn  them  ;  aad  asked,  For 
which  of  those  works  do  ye  stone  me  ?  They  replied^ 
For  a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not^  but  for  blasphemy ; 
and  because  thouy  being  a  man,  makest  thyself 
God.*  From  hence  it  is  evident,  that,  whetlier 
Jesus  Christ  be  truly  God,  or  not,  they  understood 
him  as  asserting  that  so  he  was  ;  that  is,  they  under- 
stood his  claiming  the  relation  of  God's  own  Son,  and 
declaring  that  He  and  his  Father  were  one,  as  imply- 
ing so  much.  This  was  their  stumbling-block.  Nor 
does  it  appear  that  Jesus  did  any  thing  towards  re- 
moving it  out  of  their  way.  It  is  certain  he  did  not  so 
remove  it,  as  to  afford  them  the  least  satisfaction  ;  for 
they  continued  to  think  him  guilty  of  the  same  blas- 
phemy to  the  last,  and  for  that  adjudged  him  worthy 
of  death. t  If  Jesus  never  thought  of  being  equal 
with  God,  it  is  a  pity  there  should  have  been  such  a 
misunderstanding  between  them  ;  a  misunderstand- 
ing that  proved  the  occasion  of  putting  him  to  death  1 
Such  an  hypothesis,  to  be  sure,  may  answer  one 
end ;  it  may  give  us  a  more  favourable  idea  of  the 
conduct  of  the  Jews  than  we  have  been  wont  to  enter- 
tain. If  it  does  not  entirely  justify  their  procedure,  it 
greatly  extenuates  it.  They  erred,  it  seems,  in  imag- 
ining that  Jesus,  in  declaring  himself  the  Son  of  God, 
made  himself  equal  with  God:  and  thus,  through 
mistaking  his  meaning,  put  him  to  death  as  a  blas- 
phemer. But,  then,  it  might  be  pleaded  on  their 
behalf,  that  Jesus  never  suggested  that  they  were  in  an 
error  in  that  matter — that,  instead  of  informing  them 
that  the  name  Son  of  God  implied  nothing  more  thai^ 
simple  humanity,    he   went  on  to  say,   among  other 

•  John  ▼.  18.    X.  30,  33.  f  Matt.  xxvi.  63,  66. 


LET.  3.]  OF    PROFESSED  UNBELIEVERS.  46 

things,  That  all  men  should  honour  the  Son  even  as 
they  honour  the  Father.  And  instead  of  disownint^ 
with  abhorrence  the  idea  of  making  himself  God^  he 
seemed  to  justify  it,  by  arguing  from  the  less  to  the 
greater  ;  from  the  image  of  the  thing  to  the  thing 
itself.* 

Now  these  things  considered,  should  an  impartial  ju- 
ry sit  in  judgment  upon  their  conduct,  one  would  think 
they  could  not,  with  Stephen,  bring  it  in  murder  ; 
to  make  the  most  of  it,  it  could  be  nothing  worse  than 
manslaughter.  All  this  may  tend  to  conciliate  the 
Jews,  as  it  tends  to  roll  away  the  reproach  which,  in 
the  esteem  of  christians,  lies  upon  their  ancestors,  for 
crucifying  the  Lord  of  glory  :  but  whether  it  will  hav« 
any  influence  towards  their  conversion,  is  another 
question.  It  is  possible,  that  in  proportion  as  it  con-^ 
firms  their  good  opinion  of  their  forefathers,  it 
may  confirm  their  ill  opinion  of  Jesus,  for  having,  by 
his  obscure  and  ambiguous  language,  given  occasion 
for  such  a  misunderstanding  between  them.  Could 
the  Jews  but  once  be  brought  to  feel  that  temper  of 
mind  wliich,  it  is  predicted  in  their  own  prophets, 
they  shall  feel  ;  could  they  but  look  on  kim^  tohoM 
thet/  have  pierced,  and  mourn  for  him  as  one  niourneth 
for  his  only  Son,  and  be  en  bitterness  Jbr  Aim  as  one 
that  is  in  bitterness  Jbr  his  first  born;  I  should  b€ 
under  ho  apprehensions  for  their  acknowledging  his 
proper  Divinity,  or  embracing  him  as  the  great  atone- 
ment, to  the  fountain  of  whose  blood  they  would  joy-, 
fully  repair,  that  they  might  be  cleansed  from  their 
sin  and  iheir  uncleanness.f 

Nearly  the  same  things  might  be  observed  respecting 
Ueathins  and  Mahometans.     We   may    so   model   the 

*  John  v.  18.  and  x.  34—36-    j  Zech.  xii.  10—14.     xiii.  1. 


46  THE    CONVERSION  [lET.  S. 

gospel  as  almost  to  accommodate  it  to  their  taste,  and 
by  this  means  we  may  come  nearer  together ;  but 
whether,  in  so  doing,  we  shall  not  be  rather  converted 
to  them,  than  they  to  us,  deserVes  to  be  considered. 
Christianity  may  be  so  heathenized,  that  a  man  may 
believe  in  it,  and  yet  be  no  christian.  Were  it  true, 
therefore,  that  Socinianism  hail  a  tendency  to  induce 
professed  infidels,  by  meeting  them  as  it  were  half-way, 
to  take  upon  them  the  christian  name,  still  it  would 
not  follow  that  it  was  of  any  real  use.  The  Popish 
missionaries,  of  the  last  century,  in  China,  acted  upoa 
the  principle  of  accommodation.  They  gave  up  the 
main  things  in  which  Christians  and  Heathens  had  been 
used  to  differ,  and  allowed  the  Chinese  every  favourite 
species  of  idolatry.  The  consequence  was,  they  had  a 
great  many  converts,  such  as  they  were  ;  but  thinking 
people  looked  upon  the  missionaries  as  more  convert- 
ed to  Heathenism,  than  the  Chinese  Heathens  to 
Christianity.* 

But  even  this  effect  is  more  than  may  be  expected 
fi'om  Socinian  doctrine  among  the  Heathen.  The  Po- 
pish Missionaries  had  engines  to  work  with^  which  So- 
cinians  have  not.  They  were  sent  by  an  authority, 
which,  at  that  time,  had  weight  in  the  world ;  and 
their  religion  was  accompanied  with  pomp  and  super- 
fitition.  These  were  matters,  which^  though  far  froai 
recommending  their  mission  to  the  approbation  of  se- 
rious christians,  yet  would  be  sure  to  recommend  it  to 
the  Chinese,  They  stripped  the  gospel  of  all  its  real 
glory;  and  in  its  place  substituted  a  false  glory.  But 
Socinianism,  while  it  di vests  the  gospel  of  all  that  is 
interesting  and  affecting  to  the  souls  of  men,  substi- 
tutes nothing  in  its  place.     If  it  be  Christianity  at  all, 

*  Millar's  Propagation  of  Christianity,  Vol.  II.  p  .  388,  438. 


LET.  3.]  OF    PROFESSED  UNBELIEVERS.  4? 

it  is,  as  the  ini^enioiis  Mrs.  Barbaiild  is  said  in  time 
past  to  have  expressed  it,  "  Christianity  in  the  frigid 
zone.'*  It  may  be  expected,  therefore,  that  no  con- 
siderable number  of  professed  Infidels  will  ever  think 
it  worthy  of  their  attention.  Like  the  Jew^  they  will 
pronounce  every  attempt  to  convert  them  by  these  ac- 
commodating principles  nn gator y ;  and  be  ready  to 
ask,  with  him,  What  they  shall  do  more  by  embracing 
Christianity^  than  they  already  do  ?* 

Dr.  Priestley,  however,  is  for  coming  to  action, 
'^  Let  a  free  intercourse  be  opened,  says  he,  between 
Mahometans  and  rational,  that  is.  Unitarian  Christians, 
and  I  shall  have  no  doubt  with  respect  to  the  conse- 
quence.*'f  And  again,  *' Let  the  Hindoos,  as  well  as 
the  Mahometans,  become  acquainted  with  our  litera- 
ture, and  have  free  intercourse  with  Unitarian  Chris- 
tians, and  I  have  no  doubt  but  the  result  will  be  in 
favour  of  Christianity. "J  So  then  when  Heathens  and 
Mahometans   are  to   be  converted,    Trinitarians,     like 

*  Mr.  Levi's  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley^  pp.  76,  77. 
t  Lett,  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Part  II,  pp.  116,    121. 

%  '*  Rational,  that  is  Unitarian  Christians" Why   need 

Dr.  Priestley  be  so  particular  in  informing"  his  reader  that  a 
rational  christian  sig-nifies  a  Unitarian  christian  ?  To  be  sure, 
all  the  world  knew  long-enoiig^h  as^o  that  rationality  was  confin- 
ed to  the  Ui'itarians.  Doubtless,  they  are  the  people,  and  wis- 
dom will  die  with  them.  When  Dr.  Priestley  speaks  of  per- 
sons of  his  own  sentiments,  he  calls  them  *^  rational  christians** 
AVhen  in  the  same  pag^e,  speaking  of  such  as  differ  from  him, 
he  calls  them,  "Those  who  assume  to  themselves  the  distin- 
guishing- title  of  Orthodox."  Consider,  on  Differ,  of  Opin.  §  3* 
Qiiery,  Is  the  latter  of  these  names  assumed  2iX\y  more  than  the 
former  And  is  Dr.  Priestley  a  fit  person  to  reprove  a  body 
of  people  for  assuming  a  name  which  implies  what  their  ad- 
^•ersaries  do  not  admit  ? 


#  THE    CONVERSION  [LET.  3. 

those  of  Gideon's  army,  that  bowed  down  upon  their 
knees  to  drink,  must  sit  at  home ;  and  the  whole  of  the 
expedition,  it  seems,  must  be  conducted  by  Unitarians, 
as  by  the  three  hundred  men  that  lapped.  Poor  Trin- 
itarians ;  deemed  unworthy  of  an  intercourse  with  Hea- 
thens !  Well,  if  you  must  be  denied,  as  by  a  kind  of 
Test-act^  the  privilege  of  bearing  arms  in  this  divine 
war,  surely  you  have  a  right  to  expect  that  those  who 
shall  be  possessed  of  it,  should  act  valiantly,  and  do 
exploits.  But  what  ground  have  you  on  which  to  rest 
your  expectations  ?  None,  except  Dr.  Priestley's  good 
conceit  of  his  opinions.  When  was  it  known  that  any 
considerable  number  of  Heathens  or  Mahometans  were 
converted  by  the  Socinian  doctrine  ?  Sanguine  as  the 
Doctor  is  on  this  subject.  Where  are  the  facts  on 
which  his  expectations  are  founded  ? 

Trinitarians,  however,  whether  Dr.  Priestley  think 
them  worthy  or  not,  have  gone  among  the  heathens, 
and  that  not  many  years  ago,  and  preached  what  they 
thought  the  gospel  of  Christ  ;  and  I  may  add,  from 
facts  that  cannot  be  disputed,  with  considerable  suc- 
cess. The  Dutch,  the  Danes,  and  the  English,  have 
each  made  some  attempts  in  the  East  ;  and,  1  hope, 
not  without  some  good  effects.  If  we  were  to  call  that 
conversion,  which  many  professors  of  Christianity  would 
call  so  without  any  scruple,  we  might  boast  of  the 
conversion  of  a  great  many  thousands  in  those  parts. 
But  it  is  acknowledged  that  many  of  the  conversions  in 
the  East  were  little,  if  any  thing,  more  than  a  change  of 
denomination.  Thd  greatest  and  best  work,  and  the 
most  worthy  of  the  name  of  conversion,  of  which  1 
have  read,  is  that  which  has  taken  place  by  the  labours 
of  the  Anglo-Americans  among  the  natives.  They 
{lave  indeed  wrought  wonders.     Mr.    Elliot,  the  first 


LET.  3.]  OF    PROFESSED  UJ^ BELIEVERS.  4$ 

minister  who  engaged  in  this  work,  went  over  to  New- 
England  in  1632  ;  and,  being  warmed  with  a  holy 
zeal  for  converting  the  natives,  learned  their  language, 
and  preached  to  them  in  it.  He  also,  with  great 
labour,  translated  the  Bible,  and  some  English  trea- 
tises, into  the  same  language.  God  made  him  emi- 
nently useful  for  the  turning  of  these  poor  heathens 
to  himself.  He  settled  a  number  of  christian  churches, 
and  ordained  elders  over  them  from  among  themselves. 
After  a  life  of  unremitted  labour  in  this  important 
undertaking,  he  died  in  a  good  old  age,  and  has  ever 
since  been  known,  both  amon^  the  English  and  the 
natives,  by  the  name  of.  The  Apostle  of  the  Jlmerican 
Indians. 

Nor  were  these  converts  like  many  of  those  in  the 
East,  who  professed  they  knew  not  what,  and  in  a 
little  time  went  oft' again  as  fast  they  came  :  the  gen- 
erality of  them  understood  and  felt  what  they  profess- 
ed, and  persevered  to  the  end  of  their  lives.  Mr.  El- 
liot's example  stimulated  many  others  ;  some  in  his 
life  time,  and  others  after  his  death,  laboured  much, 
and  were  blessed  to  the  conversion  of  thousands  among 
the  Indians.  The  names  and  labours  of  Bourn, 
Fitch,  Mahew,  Pierson,  Gookin,  Thatcher,  Rawson, 
Treat,  7\ipper,  Cotton,  Walter,  Sargeant,  Davenport, 
Park,  Horton,  Brainerd,  and  Edwards,  are  remem- 
bered with  joy  and  gratitude  in  those  benighted 
regions  of  the  earth.  Query.  Were  ever  any  such 
eftects  as  these  wrought  by  preaching  Socinian  doc- 
trines } 

Great  things  have   been    done    among    the    heath- 
ens of  late  years  by  the  Moravians,     Ahout   the  year 
1733,   they  sent   missionaries  to    Greenland ;    a    most 
inhospitable  country    indeed,    but    containing    about 
E 


50  THE    CONVERSION  [lET.    3. 

««  ten  thousand  inhabitants/'  all  inveloped  in  pagan 
darkness.  After  the  labour  of  several  years,  apparently 
in  vain,  success  attended  their  efforts ;  and  in  the 
course  of  twenty  or  thirty  years,  about  seven  hundred 
heathens  are  said  to  have  been  baptized,  and  to  have 
lived  the  life  of  christians.* — They  have  done  great 
good  also  in  the  most  northern  parts  of  North  Amer- 
ica, among  the  Eskimeaux  ;  and  still  more  among  the 
Negroes  in  the  West-India  Islands;  where,  at  the 
close  of  1788,  upwards  of  thirteen  thousand  of  those 
poor,  injured,  and  degraded  people,  were  formed 
into  christian  societies.  The  views  of  Moravians,  it 
is  true,  are  different  from  ours  in  several  particulars, 
especially  in  matters  relating  to  church-government 
and  discipline  ;  but  they  appear  to  possess  a  great  deal 
of  godly  simplicity  :  and  as  to  the  doctrines  which 
they  inculcate,  they  are  mostly  what  we  esteem  evan- 
gelical. The  doctrine  of  atonement  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  in  particular,  forms  the  great  subject  of 
their  ministry.  The  first  person  in  Greenland  who 
appeared  willing  to  receive  the  gospel,  was  an  old  man, 
who  came  to  the  missionaries  for  instruction.  *'  We 
told  him,"  (say  they)  "  as  well  as  we  could,  of  the 
creation  of  man,  and  the  intent  thereof,  of  the  fall 
and  corruption  of  nature,  of  the  redemption  effected 
by  Christ,  of  the  resurrection  of  all  men,  and  eternal 
happiness,  or  damnation."  They  inform  us  after- 
wards that  the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  or  ''  the  Creator's 
taking  upon  him  human  nature,  and  dying  for  our 
sins,"  was  the  most  powerful  means  of  impressing  the 
minds  of  the  heathen,  and  of  turning  their  hearts  to 
God.  "On  this  account,  (they  add)  we  determined, 
like  Paul,  to  know  nothing  but  Jesus  Christ,  and 
him  crucified." 

*  Sec  Crantz's  History  of  Greenland. 


LET.  3.]  OF    PROFESSED  UNBELIEVERS.  51 

No'.v  consider,  brethren,  were  there  ever  any  such 
effects  as  the  above  wrought  by  the  Socinian  doctrine  ? 
If  there  were,  let  them  be  brought  to  bght.  Nay, 
let  a  single  instance  be  produced  of  a  Socinian  teacher 
having  so  much  virtue  or  benevolence  in  him,  as  to 
make  the  attempt;  so  much  virtue  or  benevolence,  as 
to  venture  among  a  race  of  barbarians,  merely  with  a 
view    to  their  conversion. 

But  we  have  unbehevers  at  home  :  and  Dr.  Priestley, 
persuaded  of  the  tendency  of  his  principles  to  con- 
vert, has  lately  made  some  experiments  upon  them, 
ab  being  within  his  reach.  He  has  done  well.  There 
is  nothing  like  experiment  in  religion,  as  well  as  in 
philosophy.  As  to  what  tendency  his  sentiments 
would  have  upon  heathens  and  mahometans,  provided 
a  free  intercourse  could  be  obtained,  it  is  all  conjec- 
ture. The  best  way  to  know  their  efficacy  is  by  trial, 
and  trial  has  been  made.  Dr.  Priestley  has  addressed 
Letters  to  a  Philosophical  Unbeliever,  and  Letters  to 
the  Jews,  Whether  this  seed  will  spring  up,  it  is  true, 
we  must  not  yet  decide.  Some  little  time  after  he  had 
published,  however,  he  himself  acknowledged,  '*  I  do 
not  know  that  my  book  has  converted  a  single  un- 
believer.'** Perhaps  he  might  say  the  same  still  : 
and  that  not  only  of  his  Letters  to  a  Philosophical 
Unhelieveri  but   of  those  To  the  Jews. 

If  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  may  in  any  degree  be  col- 
lected from  the  answer  of  their  champion,  3/r.  David 
Levi,  so  far  are  they  from  being  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity  by  Dr.  Priestley's  writing?,  that  they 
suspect  whether  he  himself  be  a  Christian.  "Your 
doctrine,  (says  Mr.  Levi)  is  so  opposite  to  what  1  always 
understood  to  be  the  principles   of  Christianity,  that  I 

*  Letters  to  Mr.  HamTnon. 


52  THE    CONVERSION  [lET.    3. 

must  ingeiiiionsly  confess  I  am  greatly  puzzled  to  re- 
concile your  principles  to  the  attempt.  What  !  a  wri- 
ter that  asserts  that  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus 
does  not  appear  to  hifu  to  be  suf/tcientlt/  autheniicatedy 
and  that  the  original  Gospel  of  St»  Matthew  did  not 
contain  it,  set  up  for  a  defender  of  Christianity  against 
the  Jews  !  is  such  an  inconsistency  as  I  did  not  expect 
to  meet  with  in  a  philosopher,  whose  sole  pursuit 
hath  been  in  search  of  truth — You  are  pleased  to  de- 
clare in  plain  terms,  that  you  do  not  believe  in  the  mi- 
raculous  conception  of  Jesus -^  and  that  you  are  ofopin^ 
ion  that  he  toas  the  legitimate  son  of  Joseph.  After 
such  assertions  as  these,  how  you  can  be  entitled  to 
the  appellation  of  a  christian,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
v/ord,  is  to  me  really  incomprehensible.  If  I  am  not 
greatly  mistaken,  I  verily  believe  that  the  honour  of 
Jesus,  ^r  the  propagation  of  Christianity,  are  things 
of  little  moment  in  your  serious  thoughts,  notwithstand- 
ing all  your  boasted  sincerity."*  To  say  nothing  of  the 
opinion  of  the  Jews  concerning  tvhat  is  Christianity y 
having  all  the  weight  that  is  usually  attributed  to  the 
judgment  of  impartial  bystanders,  the  above  quotations 
afford  but  little  reason  to  hope  for  their  conversion  to 
Christianity  by  Socinlan  doctrines. 

But  still,  it  may  be  said,  we  know  not  what  is  to 
come.  True  ;  but  this  we  know,  that  if  any  considera- 
ble fruit  arise  from  the  Addresses  above  referred  to,  it 
is  yet  to  come  ;  and  not  from  those  addresses  only,  but, 
I  am  inclined  to  think,  from  any  thing  that  has  been 
attempted  by  SociJiians  for  the  conversion  of  unbelievers. 

Is  it  not  a  fact,  that  Socinian  principles  render  men 
indifferent  to  this  great  object,  and  even  induce  them 
to  treat  it  with  contempt  ?  The  Monthly  Reviewers^  in 

*  Mr.  David  Levi's  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley. 


LET.  3.]  OF    PROFESSED  UNBELIEVERS.  53 

reviewing  Mr.  Carey'* s  late  publication  on  this  subject, 
inl'er  from  his  acknowledgments  ot  the  baneful  influ- 
ence of*  wicked  Europeans  in  their  intercourse  \>ith 
lieaUiens,  and  the  great  corruptions  among  the  various 
denominations  of  professing  christians,  that  if  so,  '*  far 
better  is  the  light  of  nature  as  comiounicated  to  then^ 
by  their  Creator,  than  any  light  that  our  officiousness 
disposes  us  to  carry  to  them."*  By  Europeans,  who 
have  communicated  their  vices  to  heathens,  Mr.  Carey 
undoubtedly  meant,  not  those  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
or  those  serious  christians,  who  have  gone  among  them 
for  their  good  ;  but  navigators,  merchants,  and  adven- 
turers, whose  sole  object  was  to  enrich  themselves  :  and 
though  he  acknowledges  a  great  deal  of  degeneracy  and 
corruption  to  have  infected  the  christian  world,  yet  the 
quaiitications  which  he  requires  in  a  missionary  might 
have  secured  his  proposal  from  censure,  and  doubtless 
would  have  done  so,  had  not  the  Reviewers  been  dispos- 
ed to  throw  cold  water  Cipon  every  such  undertaking. 
If,  indeed,  there  be  none  to  be  found  among  profess- 
ing christians,  except  such,  who,  by  their  intercourse 
with  heathens,  would  only  render  their  state  worse  than 
it  was  before,  let  the  design  be  given  up  ;  but  if  other- 
wise, the  objection  is  of  no  force. 

The  Reviewers  will  acknowledge,  that  great  corrup- 
tions have  attended  the  civil  government  of  Europe, 
not  excepting  that  of  our  own  country;  and,  that  we 
are  constantly  engaged  in  dissentions  on  the  subject  : 
yet,  I  have  no  doubt  but  they  could  find  certain  indi- 
viduals, who,  if  they  were  placed  in  the  midst  of  an  un- 
civilized people,  would  be  capable  of  affording  them 
substantial  assistance;  would  teach  them  to  establish 
E  2 

♦  Monthly  HevUnx,  for  Dec.  1792,  p.  447. 


54  THE    CONVERSION,  kc,  [I'^T.    3. 

good  laws,  good  order,  and  equal  liberty.  Nor  would 
they  think  of  concluding,  because  European  conquer- 
ors and  courtiers,  knowing  no  higher  motive  than  self- 
interest,  instead  of  meliorating  the  condition  of  uncivil- 
ized nations,  have  injured  it,  that  therefore  it  was  vain 
for  any  European  to  think  of  doing  otherwise.  Neither 
would  they  regard  the  sneers  of  the  enemies  of  civil  lib- 
erty and  equity,  who  might  deride  them  as  a  little Jiock 
of  conceited  politicians,  or  at  best  of  inexperienced  phi- 
lanthropists, whose  plans  might  amuse  in  the  closet,  but 
would  not  bear  in  real  life.  Why  is  it  that  we  are  to 
be  sceptical  and  inactive  in  nothing  but  religion  ? 

Had  Mr,  Carey,  after  the  example  of  Dr.  Priestley, 
proposed  that  his  own  denomination  only  should  open 
an  intercourse  with  Heathens,  the  Reviewers  would 
have  accused  him  of  illiherality  ;  and  now,  when  he 
proposes  that,  *'  other  denominations  should  engage 
separately  in  promoting  missions,"  this,  it  is  said,  would 
be  "  spreading  our  religious  dissentions  over  the  globe." 
How,  then,  are  these  gentlemen  to  be  pleased  ?  By  sit- 
ting still,  it  should  seem,  and  persuading  ourselves  that 
it  is  impossible  to  find  out  what  is  true  religion  ;  or,  if 
not,  that  it  is  but  of  little  importance  to  disseminate  it. 
But  why  is  it,  I  again  ask,  that  we  are  to  be  sceptical 
and  inactive  in  nothing  but  religion  ?  The  result  is 
this  :  Socinianism,  so  far  from  being  friendly  to  the 
conversion  of  unbelievers,  is  neither  adapted  to  the 
end,  nor  favourable  to  the  means  ;  to  those  means, 
however,  by  which  it  has  pleased  God  to  save  them  that 
believe. 

I  am,  ^c. 


LET.    4.]  THE    NUMBER    OF,    &C.  55 


LETTER  IV. 

THE    ARGUMENT,     FROM    THE    NUMBfeR    OF    CONVEltTS 
TO    SOCFNIANISM,    EXAMINED. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

\¥  facts  be  admitted  as  evidence,  perhaps  it  will  ap- 
pear that  Socinianisni  is  not  so  much  adapted  to  make 
converts  of  Jews,  Heathens,  Mahometans,  or  Philo- 
sophical Unbelievers,  as  of  u  speculating  sort  of  people 
among  professing  Christians.  These  in  our  own  coun- 
try are  found,  some  in  the  established  church,  and  some 
among  (lissenters.  Among  people  of  this  description, 
I  suppose,  Socinianism  has  gained  considerable  ground. 
Of  this,  Dr.  Priestley,  and  others  of  his  party,  are  fre- 
quently making  their  boast.*  But  whether  they  have 
atiy  cause  for  boasting,  even  in  this  case,  may  be  justly 
doubted. 

In  the  first  place.  Let  it  be  considered,  that,  though 
Socinianism  may  gain  ground  among  speculating  indi^ 
viduals,  yet  the  congregations  where  that  system,  or 
what  bears  a  near  resemblance  to  it,  is  taught,  are 
greatly  upon  the  decline. — There  are,  at  this  time,  a 
great  many  places  of  worship  in  this  kingdom,  especial- 
ly among  the  Presbyterians,  and  the  General  Baptists, 
u^here  the  Socinian  and  Arian  doctrines  have  been 
taught  till  the  congregations  are  gradually  dwindled 
away,  and  there  are  scarcely  enough  left  to  keep  up  the 
form  of  worship.  There  is  nothing  in  either  of  these 
systems,  comparatively  speaking,  that  alarms  the  con- 
science, or  interests  the  heart  ;  and  therefore  the  con- 
gregations where  they  are  taught,   unless  kept   up  by 

*  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  92,  94, 


5§,  THE    NUMBER    OF  [lET.    4. 

the  accidental  popularity  of  a  preacher,  or  some  other 
circumstance,  distinct  from  the  doctrine  delivered, 
generally  fall  into  decay. 

But,  farther,  Let  us  examine  a  little  more  particu- 
larly, what  sort  of  people  they,  in  general,  are,  who  are 
converted  to  Socinianism.  It  is  an  object  worthy  of 
inquiry,  whether  they  appear  to  be  modest,  humble, 
serious  christians  ;  such  as  have  known  the  plague  of 
their  own  hearts;  such  in  whom  tribulation  hath 
wrought  patience,  and  patience  experience  ;  such  who 
know  wHOiM  they  have  believed,  and  who  have  learned 
to  count  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the 
knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  their  Lord  ;  such  who,  in 
their  investigation  of  sentiments,  have  been  used  to 
mingle  earnest  and  humble  prayer  with  patient  and 
impartial  inquiry  ;  such,  in  fine,  who  have  become  as 
little  children  in  their  own  eyes  ?  If  they  be,  it  is  a  cir- 
cumstance of  consequence,  not  sufficient  indeed  to  jus- 
tify their  change  of  sentiments,  but  to  render  that 
change  an  object  of  attention.  When  persons  of  this 
descriptioa  embrace  a  set  of  new  principles,  it  becomes 
a  matter  of  serious  consideration,  what  could  induce 
them  to  do  so.  But  if  they  he  not,  their  case  deserves 
but  little  regard.  When  the  body  of  converts  to  a 
system  are  mere  speculatists  in  religion,  men  of  little 
or  no  seriousness,  and  who  pay  no  manner  of  attention 
to  vital  and  practical  religion,  it  reflects  neither  honour 
on  the  cause  they  have  espoused,  nor  dishonour  on 
that  which  they  have  rejected.  When  we  see  persons 
of  this  stamp  go  over  to  the  Socinian  standard,  it  does 
not  at  all  surprise  us;  on  the  contrary,  vve  are  ready  to 
sav,  as  the  apostle  said  of  the  defection  of  some  of  the 
professors  of  Christianity  in  his  day,  They  went  out 
from  uSi  hut  they  were  not  of  us. 


LET.    4.]  SOCINIAN    CONVERTS.  57 

That  many  of  the  Socinian  converts  were  previously 
men  of  no  serious  religion,  needs  no  other  proof  than 
the  acknowledgment  of  Dr.  Priestley,  and  of  Mr.  Bel- 
sham.      It   cannot  be  denied,    (says   the  former)   "that 
many  of  those  who  judge  so  truly,   concerning   partic- 
ular tenets  in  religion,  have  attained  tojthat  cool    unbi- 
assed   temper   of   mind    in   consequence  of  becoming, 
more  indifferent  to  religion  in  general,   and   to  all  the  , 
modes  and  doctrines  of  it."       And  this   indifference  to. 
all  religion  is  considered  by  Dr.  Priestley  as   "favour-- 
able   to    a    distinguishing    between    truth    and    false- 
hood."*    Much  to  the  same  purpose  is   what  Mr,  Bel-  ^ 
sham  alleges,   as   quoted   before,  that,  **  Men  who  are 
most  indifferent  to  the  practice  of  religion,  and  whose 
minds  therefore  are   least  attached  to  any  set  of  princi- 
ples, will  ever  be  the  first  to  see  the  absurdity  of  a  pop- 
ular superstition,  and   to  embrace  a  rational   system  of 
faith. "t      It  is   easy   to  see,   one  should   think,   from 
hence,  what  sort  of  characters  those  are  which  compose 
the  body  of  Socinian  converts. 

Dr.  Priestley,  however,  considers  this  circumstance 
as  reflecting  no  dishonour  upon  his  princi};les.  He 
thinks  he  has  fully  accounted  for  it.  So  thinks  Mr. 
Be'sham,  and  so  think  the  Monthly  Reviewers,  in 
their  Review  of  Mr.  Belsham's  Sermon. ijl 

*  Discourses  on  Vanoiis  Subjects,  p.  65. 
f  Serm.  on  Import,  of  Truths  p  32. 
?  I  have  not  scrupled  to  class  the  Monthly  J^evie^vers  among* 
Socinians.  Although  in  a  work  of  that  kind  there  be  frequently, 
no  doubt,  a  change  of  hands  ;  yet  it  is  easy  to  see  that  of  late 
years  (a  very  short  interval  excepted)  it  has  been  princip:dly,  if 
not  entirely,  under  Socinian  direction  ;  and,  so  far  as  religion 
is  concerned,  has  been  used  as  an  instrument  for  the  propaga- 
tion of  that  system.    Impartiality  towards  Calvinistic  writers  is 


58  THE    NUMBER    OF  [lET.    4. 

Surely  Soc'unans  must  be  wretchedly  driven,  or  they, 
would  not  have  recourse  to  such  a  refu2:e  as  that  of  ac- 
knowledging that  they  hold  a  gospel,  the  best  prepara- 
tive for  which  is  a  being  destitute  of  all  religion! 
<*  What  a  reflection  is  here  implied,''  says  Dr.  Wil- 
liams, **  on  the  most  eminent  Reformers  of  every  age, 
who  were  the  first  to  see  the  absurdities  of  a  popular 
superstition,  and  the  falsity  of  reigning  principles  ! 
What  a  poor  compliment  to  the  religious  character  of 
Unitarian  reformers  !  According  to  this  account,  one 
might  be  tempted  to  ask — Was  it  by  being  indifferent 
to  the  practice  of  religion  that  Mr.  Belsham  was  quali- 
fied to  see  and  pronounce  Calvinism  to  he  gloomy  and 
erroneous.,  an  unamiahle  and  melancholi/  system  ?  Char- 
ity forbids  us  to  think  be  was  thus  qualified  ;  and  if  so, 
by  his  own  rule  he  is  no  very  competent  judge  ;  except 
he  is  pleased  to  adopt  the  alternative,  that  he  is  only 

not,  therefore,  to  be  expected  from  that  quarter.  It  is  true, 
they  sometimes  affect  to  stand  aloof  from  all  parties  ;  but  it  is 
mere  affectation.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  expect 
them  to  judg-e  impartially  in  a  cause  wherein  they  themselves 
are  parties  ;  absurd  however  as  it  is,  some  persons  are  weak 
enough  to  be  imposed  upon  by  their  pretences.  Perhaps  of 
Inte  years,  the  Monthly  J^evieiv  has  more  contributed  to  the 
spreading"  of  Socinianism,  than  all  other  writings  put  together. 
The  plan  of  that  w^ork  does  not  admit  of  argumentation  ;  a  sud- 
den flash  of  wit  is  generally  reckoned  sufficient  to  di&credit  a 
Calvinistic  performance  ;  and  this  just  suits  the  turn  of  those 
who  are  destitute  of  all  religion.  A  laborious  investigation  of 
matters  would  not  suit  their  temper  of  mind;  they  had  rather 
subscribe  to  the  well  known  maxim,  that,  "  Ridicule  is  the 
test  of  truth  :"  and  then,  whenever  the  Reviewers  hold  up  a 
doctrine  as  ridiculous,  they  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  join  the 
laugh,  and  conclude  it  to  be  a  *«  vulgar  error,  or  a  popular  su- 
perstition." 


LET.    4.]  SOCINIAN    CONVERTS.  59 

the  humble  follower  of  more  sagacious,  but  irreligious 
guides,"* 

We  read  of  different  kinds  of  preparatives  in  the 
scriptures  ;  but  I  do  not  recollect  that  they  contain  any 
thing  like  the  above.  Zeal  and  attention,  a  disposition 
to  search  and  pray,  according  to  Solomon,  is  a  prepara- 
tive for  the  discovery  of  truth. f  The  piety  of  Corne- 
lius, which  he  exercised  according  to  the  opportunities 
he  possessed  of  obtaining  light,  was  a  preparative  for 
his  reception  of  the  gospel  as  soon  as  he  heard  it. J 
And  this  accords  with  our  Lord's  declaration  ;  He  that 
tvill  do  his  will  shall  know  of  his  doctrine.  On  the 
other  hand.  The  cold  indifference  of  some  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  u'ho  received  not  the  love  0/  the  tiuth,  but,  as 
it  should  seem,  held  it  with  a  loose  hand,  even  while 
they  professed  it,  was  equally  a  preparative  for  apos- 
tasy.1|  We  also  read  of  some  in  Isaiah's  time,  who 
'*  leaned  very  much  to  a  life  of  dissi})ation  ;"  they 
erred  through  wine.  All  tables  are  full  of  vomit,  and 
Jilthiness,  (salth  the  prophet,  describing  one  of  their 
assemblies)  so  that  there  is  no  place.  He  adds.  Whom 
shall  he  teach  knowledge,  and  whom  shall  he  make  to 
under statid  doctrine  ?  And  what  is  the  answer  ?  *'  Were 
the  men  who  leaned  to  a  life  of  dissipation,"  who  loved 
to  suck  at  the  breasts  of  sensual  indulgence,  the  proper 
subjects  ?  No  ;  those  that  were  weaned  from  the  breasts, 
and  drawn  from  the  milk.^  But  now,  it  seems,  the 
case  is  altered  ;  and,  in  order  to  find  out  truth,  the 
most  likely  way  is  to  be  divested  of  all  religion  / 

•  Discourse  on  the  Influence  of  Religious  Practice,  upon 
our  inquiries  after  truthj  in  Answer  to  Mr.  Belsham's  Ser- 
mon, p.  6. 

f  Prov.  ii.  l— 9.  t  Acts  x.  ||  2  Thes.  ii.  10.   §  Isai.  xxviii.  7,  9. 


60  THE    NUMBER    OF  [LKT.    4. 

It  is  true,  these  things  are  spoken  of  what  are  called 
«'  speculative  Unitarians,*'  whom  Dr.  Priestley  calls 
*«  men  of  the  world,"  and  distinguishes  them  from 
"  serious  christians."  He  endeavours  also  to  guard 
his  cause  by  observing,  That  the  bulk  of  professing 
christians,  or  of  those  who  should  have  ranked  as 
christians,  in  every  age,  have  been  of  this  description. 
It  must  be  acknowledged,  that  there  have  been  luke- 
warm, dissipated,  and  merely  nominal  christians,  in 
all  ages  of  the  church,  and  in  every  denomination  : 
I  suspect,  however,  that  Dr.  Priestley,  in  order  to 
reduce  the  state  of  the  church  in  general  to  that  of 
the  Unitarians,  has  rather  magnified  this  matter.  But 
.  be  that  as  it  may,  there  are  two  circumstances  which 
render  it  improper  for  him  to  reason  from  this  case 
to  the  other  : — First,  Whatever  bad  characters  have 
ranked  with  other  denominations,  at  least  with  ours, 
as  to  their  religious  creed,  we  do  not  own,  or  consider 
them  as  *'  converts  ;"  much  less  do  we  glory  in  the 
spread  of  our  principles,  when  men  of  that  character 
profess  to  embrace  them,  as  this  writer  does.*  If 
we  speak  of  converts  to  our  principles,  we  disown 
such  people,  and  leave  them  out  of  the  account,  as 
persons  whose  walk  and  conversation,  whatever  be 
their  speculative  opinions,  discover  them  to  be  enemies 
to  the  fross  of  Christ*  But  were  Socinians  to  do  so, 
it  is  more  than  probable  that  the  number  of  converts 
of  whom  they  boast  would  be  greatly  diminished. — 
Secondly,  Whenever  irreligious  characters  profess  to 
imbibe  our  principles,  we  do  not  consider  their  state 
of  mind  as  friendly  to  them.  That  which  we  account 
truth,  is  a  system  of  holiness  ;  a  system,  therefore, 
which  men  of  *'  no   religion"  will  never  cordially  em- 

*  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  98—93,  94. 


LET.    4.]  SOCINIAN    CONVERTS.  "^1 

brace.  Persons  may  indeed  embrace  a  notion  about 
the  certainty  of  the  divine  decrees,  and  of  the  necessity 
of  things  being  as  they  are  to  be,  whether  the  proper 
means  be  used  or  not  ;  and  they  may  live  in  the 
neglect  of  all  means,  and  of  all  practical  religion  ;  and 
may  reckon  themselves,  and  be  reckoned  by  some 
othei-s,  among  the  Calvinists,  To  such  a  creed  as 
this,  it  is  allowed,  the  want  of  all  relifrion  is  the  best 
preparative  :  but  then  it  must  be  observed,  that  the 
creed  itself  is  as  false,  as  the  practice  attending  it  is 
impure,  and  as  opposite  to  Calvinism,  as  it  is  to  scrip- 
ture and  common  sense.  Our  opponents,  on  the  con- 
trary,  ascribe  many  of  their  conversions  to  the  absence 
of  religion,  as  their  proper  cause,  granting  that,  **  ma- 
ny of  those  who  judge  so  truly  concerning  particular 
tenets  in  religion,  have  attained  to  that  cool  unbiassed 
temper  of  mind  in  consequence  of  becoming  more 
indiifferent  to  religion  in  general,  and  to  all  the  modes 
and  doctrines  of  it."  Could  this  acknowledgment  be 
considered  as  the  mistake  of  an  unguarded  moment, 
it  might  be  overlooked  ;  but  it  is  a  fact^  a  fact  which, 
as  Dr.  Priestley  himself  expresses  it,  "  cannot  be 
denied  :"*  a  fact,  therefore,  which  must  needs  prove 
a  mill-stone  about  the  neck  of  his  system.  That 
doctrine,  be  it  what  it  may,  to  which  an  indifference 
to  religion  in  general  is  friendly,  cannot  be  the  gos- 
pel, or  any  thing  pertaining  to  it,  but  something  very 
near  akin  to  infidelity. 

If  it  be   objected,    that  the  immoral   character  of 
persons,    previous   to  their   embracing  a  set  of    prin- 
ciples,   ought   not   to    be   alleged   against   the   moral 
tendency   of   those   principles;    because,    if    it   were, 
F 

*  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  95, 


l^^  THE    NUMBER   OF  £lET.    4. 

Christianity  itself  would  be  dishonoured  by  the  pre- 
vious character  of  many  of  the  primitive  christians— 
It  is  replied,  there  are  two  circumstances  necessary 
to  render  this  objection  of  any  force  :— First,  The 
previous  character  of  the  convert,  however  witked 
it  may  have  been,  must  have  no  injiuence  on  his 
conversion. — Secondly,  This  conversion  must  have 
such  an  influence  on  him,  that,  whatever  may 
have  been  his  past  char^acter,  his  future  life  shall  be 
devoted  to  God.  Both  these  circumstances  existed 
in  the  case  of  the  primitive  christians  ;  and  if  tlie 
same  could  be  said  of  the  converts  to  Socinianism, 
it  is  acknowledged  that  all  objections  from  this  quarter 
ought  to  give  way.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  So- 
cinian  converts  are  not  only  allowed,  many  of  them, 
to  be  meh  of  no  religion  ;  but  the  want  of  religion, 
as  we  have  seen  already,  is  allowed  to  have  influenced 
their  conversion.  Nor  is  this  all  ;  it  is  allowed,  that 
their  conversion  to  these  principles  has  no  such  influ- 
ence upon  them  as  to  make  any  material  change  in 
their  character  for  the  better.  This  is  a  fact  tacitly 
admitted  by  Mr.  Belsham,  in  that  he  goes  about  to 
account  for  it,  by  alleging  what  was  their  character 
previous  to  their  conversion.  It  is  true,  he  talks  of 
this  being  the  case,  "  only  for  a  time,"  and  at  length 
these  converts  are  to  "  have  their  eyes  opened  ;  are 
to  feel  the  benign  influence  of  their  principles,  and 
demonstrate  the  excellency  of  their  faith  by  the  su- 
perior dignity  and  worth  of  their  characters."  But 
these,  it  seems,  like  the  "  annihilation  of  death," 
and  the  conversion  of  Jews  and  Mahometans  by  the 
Socinian  doctrine,  are  things  yet  to  come,* 

*  Since  the  publication  of  the  first  edition  of  these  Letters, 
$L  report  has  been  circulated,  that  Dr.  Priestley  has  been  mis- 


LET.    4.]  SOCINIAN    CONVERTS.  63 

But  it  will  be  pleaded,  though   many  who  go  over  to 
SociniaQlti^in   are   men   of  no  religion,  and  continue  to 


represented  by  the  quotation  in  page  56^  which  also  was  referred 
to  in  the  preface,  p.  i.  Dr.  P  it  has  been  said,  in  the  place 
from  whence  the  passage  is  taken,  ivas  not  coTnviending  a  total 
indifference  to  religion,  but  the  contrary  /  and  his  tneaning  U'flj, 
not  that  such  a  disregard  to  all  religion  is  a  better  quaiification 
for  discerning  truths  than  a  serious  temper  of  mind,  but  that  it  i» 
preferable  to  that  bigoted  attachment  to  a  system  ivhick  sotne 
people  discover. 

That  Dr.  P.'s  leading  design  was  to  commend  a  total  indif- 
ference to  religion  was  never  suggested  I  suppose  this,  on 
the  contrary,  was'  to  commend  good  discipline  among  the  Uni- 
tarians, for  the  purpose  of  promoting  religious  zeal.  His 
words  are,  (accounting  for  the  want  of  zeal  among  them)  **  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  many  of  those  who  judge  so  truly  con- 
cerning particular  tenets  in  religion,  have  attained  to  that  cool 
unbiassed  temper  of  mind,  in  consequence  of  becoming  more 
indifferent  to  religion  in  general,  and  to  all  the  modes  and 
doctrines  of  it.  Though,  therefore,  they  are  in  a  more  favour- 
able situation  for  distinguishing  between  truth  and  falsehood, 
they  are  not  likely  to  acquire  a  zeal  for  what  they  conceive  to 
be  the  truth." 

The  leading  design  of  Dr.  P.  in  this  passage,  it  is  allowed, 
was  to  recommend  good  discipline,  as  friendly  to  zeal  ;  and 
as  a  previous  indifference  to  religion  in  general  was  unfavour- 
able to  that  temper  of  mind  which  he  wished  to  inspire,  in 
this  view  he  is  to  be  understood  as  blaming  it.  Yet,  in  an 
incidental  manner  he  as  plainly  acknowledges  it  to  have  been 
favourable  for  distinguishing  between  truth  and  falsehood,  and 
in  this  view  he  must  be  understood  ^s  com,mendi)ig  it.  That 
he  does  commend  it,  though  in  an  incidental  way,  is  manifest 
from  his  attributing  their  judging  so  truly  concerning  particu- 
lar tenets  in  religion  to  it  ;  and  that  not  merely  as  an  occasion, 
but  as  an  adequate  cause,  producing  a  good  effect ;  render- 
ing the  mind  more  cool  and  unbiassed  than  it  was  before.  To 
suppose  that  Dr.  P.  does  not  mean  to  recommend  indifference 


64  THE    NUMBER   OP  [lET.   4. 

*Mtan  to  a  life  of  dissipation,*'  yet  that  is  not  the  case 
wtih  all:    there   are  some  who  are  exemplary  in  tlieir 

to  religion  in  ^s^eneral,  as  friendly  to  truth  (though  unfriendly  to 
zeal)  is  supposing  him  not  to  mean  what  he  says. 

As  to  the  question,  Whether  Dr.  P.  means  to  compare  an 
indifference  to  religion  in  general,  with  a  serious  temper  of 
mind,  or  with  a  spirit  of  bigotry  ?  It  cannot  be  the  latter,  un- 
less he  consider  the  characters  of  whom  he  speaks,  as  having 
been  formei'ly  bigoted  in  their  attachment  to  modes  and  forms- 
For  he  is  not  comparing  them  with  other  people^  but  with 
themselves  at  a  former  period.  So  long  as  they  regarded  relig- 
ion in  general,  according  to  his  account,  they  were  in  a  less 
favourable  situation  for  distinguishing  between  truth  and  false- 
hood, than  when  they  came  to  disregard  it.  Dr.  P.'s  own 
account  of  these  characters  seems  to  agree  with  mere  men  of 
the  world,  rather  than  with  religious  bigots.  They  were  per- 
sons, he  says,  who  troubled  themselves  very  little  about  relig- 
ion ;  but  who  had  been  led  to  turn  their  attention  to  the  dis- 
pute concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  and  by  their  natural  good 
sense  had  decided  upon  it.  To  this  effect  he  writes  in  pages 
96,  97,  of  his  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects  Now%  this  is 
far  from  answering  to  the  character  of  religious  bigots,  or  of 
those  who  a,t  any  time  have  sustained  that  character. 

But,  waving  this,  let  us  suppose,  that  the  regard  which  those 
characters  bore  towards  religion  in  general,  loas  the  regard  of 
bigots.  In  this  case,  they  were  a  kind  of  Pharisees,  attached 
to  modes  and  forms,  which  blinded  their  minds  from  discover- 
ing the  truth.  Afterwards  they  approached  nearer  to  the  Sad- 
ducees,  became  more  indifferent  to  religion  in  general,  and  to 
all  the  modes  and  doctrines  of  it.  The  amount  of  Dr.  P  's 
position  would  then  be.  That  the  spirit  of  a  Sadducee  is  pre- 
ferable, with  respect  to  discerning  truth,  to  that  of  a  Pliarisee, 
possessing  more  of  a  cool  unbiassed  temper  of  mind.  The  re- 
ply that  I  shovild  make  to  this,  is,  That  neither  Pharisees  nor 
Sadducees  possess  that  temper  of  mind  of  which  Dr.  P.  speaks, 
but  are  both  a  generation  of  vipers,  difierent  in  some  respects, 
but  equally  malignant  towards  the  true  gospel  of  Christ  :  and 
that  the  luunble,  the  candid,  the  serious,  and  the  upright  eu» 


LET.    4.]  SOCINIAN    CONVERTS.  65 

lives,  men  of  eminent  piety  and  virtue,  and  who  are 
distinguished  by  T>i\  Priestley  by  the  name  of  *'  se- 
rious  christians."*     To  this  it  is  replied  ; — 

quirers  after  truth  are  the  only  persons  likely  to  find  it.  And 
this  is  the  substance  of  what  I  advanced  in  page  i,  of  the  pre^ 
face,  which  has  been  charged  as  a  misrepresentation.  I  never 
sug-g-ested  that  Dr.  P.  was  comparing  the  characters  in  ques- 
tion with  the  serious  or  the  candid  ;  but  rather  that  let  the 
comparison  respect  ivhotn  it  might,  his  attributing  an  unbiassed 
temper  of  mind  to  men  in  consequence  of  their  becoming  in- 
difiierent  to  religion  m  general,  was  erroneous  ;  for  that  he 
who  is  not  a  friend  to  religion  in  any  mode,  is  an  enemy  to  it 
in  all  modes,  and  ought  not  to  be  complimented  as  being  in  a 
favourable  situation  for  distinguishing  between  truth  and 
falseliood. 

A  writer  in  the  Monthly  Review  has  laboured  to  bring  Mr, 
Belsham  off  in  the  same  manner.  But  ihstead  of  affording 
bim  any  relief,  he  has  betrayed  the  cause  he  has  espoused, 
and  made  Mr.  B.  reason  in  a  manner  unworthy  of  his  abilities. 
'*  We  apprehend,  (says  this  writer)  that  Mr.  B.  does  not  mean 
to  assert,  nor  even  to  intimate,  that  indifference  to  religious 
practice  prepared  the  mind  for  the  admission  of  that  religious 
truth  ivhich  prompts  virtttous  conduct."  Mr.  B.,  however,  does 
intimate,  and  even  assert,  that,  "  the  men  who  are  the  most 
indifferent  to  the  practice  ot  religion,,  will  ever  be  the  first  not 
only  to  see  the  absurdity  of  a  popular  superstition*  but  to  em- 
brace a  rational  system  of  faith"  Does  the  Reviewer  mean 
then  to  acknowledge  that  the  rational  system  does  not  include 
that  kind  of  truth  which  prompts  virtuous  conduct  R  There  is  no^ 
truth  in  his  expresi>ions,  but  upon  this  supposition. 

But  this  writer  not  only  informs  us  what  Mr.  B,  did  not 
mean,  but  what  he  did  mean.  (One  would  think  the  Reviewer 
of  Dr  Williams  nuist  have  been  very  intimate  with  Mr.  B.)y 
Mr.  Belsham  meant,  it  seems^  *'  That  the  absurdities  ofijr^ 
popular  superstition  are  rnore  apt  to  strike  the  minds  of  thoae- 
who  are  even  indifferent  to  religion,  than  of  those  who  are  big> 
F  2- 
♦  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects j  p.  98, 


ti(>  THE    NUMBER    OP  [lFT.    4. 

First,  Whatever  piety  or  virtue  there  may  be  among 
Socinian  converts,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  piety    or 

oted  in  their  attachment  to  particular  creeds  and  rites  ;  and 
therefore  that  the  former  will  be  more  inclined  to  allow  reason 
to  mould  their  faith,  than  tlie  latter."— i?e<u/ew  of  Drs  William^ 
A?isv:er  to  Mr  BeUhamy  for  Jan.  1792,  page  117. 

To  be  sure,  if  a  Reviewer  may  be  allowed  to  add  a  few  such 
words  as  Ttiorey  and  tharit  and  everiy  to  Mr.  B.'s  language,  he 
may  smooth  its  rough  edges,  and  render  it  less  exceptionable; 
but  is  it  true  that  this  was  Mr.  B.'s  meaning,  or  that  such  a 
meaning  would  ever  have  been  invented  but  to  serve  a  turn  ? 

If  there  be  any  way  of  coming  at  an  author's  meaning,  it  is 
by  his  ivords,  and  by  the  scope  of  his  reasoning  ;  but  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  will  warrant  this  construction.  Mr.  B.'s 
*mords  are  these  :  "  The  men  who  are  the  most  indifferent  to 
the  practice  of  religion,  will  ever  be  the^r*^  to  embrace  a  ra- 
tional system  of  faith"  If  he  intended  merely  to  assert,  that 
immoral  characters  will  embrace  the  truth  before  bigots,  his 
words  are  abundantly  too  strong  for  his  meaning  ;  for  though 
the  latter  were  allowed  to  be  the  last  in  embracing  iruth,  it 
will  not  follow  that  the  former  will  be  the^r*^.  If  the  rational 
system  were  on  the  side  of  truth,  surely  it  might  be  expected 
that  the  serious  and  the  upright  would  be  \\\^  Jirst  to  embrace 
it.  But  this  is  not  pretended.  Serious  christians^  by  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  Mrs.  Barbauld,  are  the  last  that  come  fully 
into  it. 

The  scope  of  Mr.  Belshatn^s  reasoning  is  equally  unfavourable 
to  such  a  construction  as  his  words  are.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  objection  which  he  encounters,  that  admits  of  such  an  an- 
swer. It  was  not  alleged,  That  there  was  a  greater  propoition 
of  immoral  characters  than  of  bigots,  among  Unitarians;  had 
this  been  the  charge,  the  answer  put  into  Mr  B.'s  lips  might 
nave  been  in  point.  But  the  charge  as  he  himself  expresses 
it,  was  simply  this  :  **  Rational  christians  are  often  represented 
as  indifferent  to  practical  religion."  To  suppose  that  Mr.  B. 
would  account  for  this,  by  alleging  that  immoral  characters  are 
more  likely  to  embrace  the  truth  than  bigots  (unless  he  de- 
nominate all  bigots  who  are  not  Unitarians)  is  supposing  him 


LET.    4.]  SOCINIAN    CONVERTS.  &f 

virtue  led  them  to  embrace  that  scheme,  or  were  much 
in  exercise  in  their  researches  after  it. — It  has  been  observ- 
ed by  some  who  have  been  most  conversant  with  them, 
that  as  they  have  discovered  a  predilection  for  those  view^ 
of  things,  it  has  been  very  common  for  them  to  discover  at 
the  same  time  a  light-minded  temper,  speaking  of  sa- 
cred things  and  disputing  about  them  with  the  most 
unbecoming  levity,  and  indecent  freedom  ;  avoiding 
all  conversation  on  experimental  and  devotional  sub- 
jects, and  directing  their  whole  discourse  to  matters  of 
mere  speculation.  Indeed,  piety  and  virtue  are  in  ef- 
fect acknowledged  to  be  unfavourable  to  the  embracing 
of  the  Socinian  scheme  :  for  if  "  an  indifference  to  re- 
ligion in  general  be  favourable  to  the  distinguishing 
between  truth  and  falsehood  ;"  and  if,  '*  those  men 
who  are  the  most  iildifferent  to  the  practice  of  religion, 
will  ever  be  the  Jirst  to  embrace  the  rational  system," 
it  must  follow,  by  the  rule  of  contraries,  that  piety,  vir- 
tue, and  zeal  for  religion,  are  things  unfavourable  to 
that  system,  and  that  pious  and  virtuous  persons  will 
ever  be  the  last  to  embrace  it;  nay,  some  may  think  it 
very  doubtful   whether   they    ever  embrace    it   at    all. 

to  have  left  the  objection  unanswered.  How  is  it  that  there 
should  be  so  ^reat  a  proportion  of  imnioral  characters  rather 
than  of  humble,  serious,  and  godly  wen  ;  or  of  what  Mr.  Bel- 
sham  calls,  "  practical  believers  ?"  This  was  the  spirit  of  the 
objection  ;  and  if  the  above  construction  of  Mr.  B.'s  words  be 
admitted,  it  remains  unanswered. 

Let  Dr.  Priestley,  or  Mr  Belsham,  or  any  of  their  advocate?, 
who  have  charged  the  above  quotations  with  Tnisrepresentation, 
come  forward,  and,  if  they  be  able,  make  good  the  charge. 
Till  this  ;  done,  I  shall  consider  them  as  fair  and  just  ;  and 
as  including  concessions,  which,  though  possibly  made  in  an 
unguarded  moment,  contain  a  truth  which  must  prove  a  mill- 
stone about  tlie  neck  of  the  Socinian  system. 


S^  THE    NUMBER    OF  [lET.    4. 

Serious  christians,  according  to  the  account  of  Mrs, 
Barbauld,  are  the  most  difficult  sort  of  people  that  So- 
cinian  writers  and  preachers  have  to  deal  with  ;  for 
though  they  are  sometimes  bro\ight  to  renounce  the 
Calvinistic  doctrines  in  theory,  yet  there  is  a  sort  of 
leaning  towards  them  in  their  heart?,  which  their  teach- 
ers know  not  how  to  eradicate.  "  These  doctrines, 
{she  says)  it  is  true,  among  thinking  people  are  losing 
ground  ;  but  there  is  still  apparent  in  that  class  called 
serious  christians^  a  tenderness  in  exposing  them  ;  a 
sort  of  leaning  towards  them,  as  in  walking  over  a  prec- 
ipice one  should  lean  to  the  safest  side  ;  an  idea  that 
they  are,  if  not  true,  at  least  good  to  be  believed,  and 
that  a  salutary  error  is  better  than  a  dangerous  truth."* 
Secondly,  Whatever  virtue  there  may  be  among 
Socinian  converts,  it  may^  be  questioned  yvhethcr  the 
distinguishing  principles  of  Socinianism  have  any 
tendency  towards  promoting  it. — The  principles  which 
they  hold  in  common  with  us  ;  namely,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead  and  a  future  life,  and  not  those  in 
which  they  are  distinguished  from  us,  are  confessedly 
the  springs  of  their  virtue.  As  to  the  simple  humanity 
of  Christ,  which  is  one  of  the  distinguishing  principles 
of  Socinianism,  Dr.  Priestley  acknowledges  that, 
**  The  connexion  between  this  simple  truth,  and 
a  regular  christian  life,  is  very  slight. f  That,  (says 
the  same  author)  which  is  most  favourable  to  virtue 
in  Christianity,  is  the  expectation  of  a  future  state  of 
retribution,  grounded  on  a  firna:  belie/  of  the  historical 
facts  recorded  in  the  scriptures,  especially  the  miracles, 
the  death,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  The  man  who 
believes   these  things  only,    and    who,   together   with 

•  Remarks  on  Wakefield's  Enquiry  on'  Social  Worship. 
\  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  97. 


LET.    4.}  SOCINIAN    CONVERTS,  ^jfi* 

this,   acknowledges    an    universal   providence   ordering 
all  events,    who  is  persuaded  that  our  very   hearts  are 
constantly   open   to  divine  inspection,   so    that    no  in- 
iquity, or  purpose  of  it,   can   escape  his   observation, 
will   not   be  a    bad  man,   or  a   dangerous   member  of, 
society/'*     Now    these  are   things   in  which  we  are  all ^ 
agreed  :  whatever   virtue  therefore  is  ascribed  to  them, 
it  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  the  result  of  Socinian  prin-^ 
ciples. — If,   in  addition   to  this,   we  were  to  impute  a 
considerable  degree  of  the  virtue   of  Socinian  converts^ 
to  "  the  principles  in  which  they  were  educated,   and 
the  influence  to  which  they  were  exposed  in  the  former^ 
part  of  their  lives,"  we  should  only  say  of  them  what, 
Dr.  Priestley  says  of  the  virtuous  lives  of  some  athe-. 
ists  ;    and  perhaps  we   should    have  as    good  ground^ 
for  such,  au^  imputation  in  the  one  case,  as  he  had  in 
the  other. f 

Among  the  various  Socinian  converts.  Have  we 
ever  been  used  to  hear  of  any  remarkable  ciiange  of 
life  or  behaviour  which  a  conversion  to  their  peculiar 
principles  effected?  1  hope  there  are  few  Calvinistie 
congregations  in  the  kingdom,  but  what  could  point 
out  examples  of  persons  among  them,  who,  at  the, 
time  of  their  coming  over  to  their  doctrinal  principles, 
caine  over  also  from  the  course  of  this  world,  and  have; 
ever  since  lived  in  newness  of  life.  Can  this  be  said 
of  the  generality  of  Socinian  congregations  ?  Those, 
who  have  had  the  greatest  opportunity  of  observing^ 
them,  say  the  contrary.  Yea,  they  add,  that  the 
conversion  of  sinners  to  a  life  of  holiness  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  their  aim;  that  their  concern  seems  to  be 
to  persuade  those  who,  in  their  account,  have  too 
.much  religion,   that  less  will  suffice,  rather  than  address 

•  Letter  V,  to  Mr.  Burn. 
t  Lett,  to  a  Pbil.  Unb.    Part  I.  Pref.  p.  vi 


7^  THE    STANDARD  [lET,    5. 

themselves  to  the  irreligious  to  convince  them  of  their 
defect.  A  great  part  of  Dr.  Priestley's -Sermon  on 
the  death  of  Mr.  Robinson  is  of  this  tendency.  In- 
stead of  concurring  with  the  mind  of  God,  as  express- 
ed in  his  word,  O  that  my  people  were  wise,  that  they 
would  consider  their  latter  end  f  the  preacher  goes 
about  to  dissuade  his  hearers  from  thinking  too  much 
upon  that  unwelcome  subject. 

You  will  judge  from  these  things,  brethren,  whether 
there  be  any  cause  for  boasting  on  the  [art  of  the 
Socinians,  in  the  number  of  '*  converts  which,  they 
tell  us,  are  continually  making  to  their  principles  ;'** 
or  for  discouragement  on  the  side  of  the  Calvinists, 
as  if  what  they    account  the  cause  of  God  and  truth 

were  going  fast  to  decline, 

I  am^  &c. 


LETTER  V. 

ON    THE    STANDARD    OF   MORALITY. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

YOU  have  observed  that  Dr.  Priestley  charges 
the  Calvinistic  system  with  being  unfriendly  to  mo- 
rality, "  as  giving  wrong  impressions  concerning  the 
character  and  moral  government  of  God,  and  as  re- 
laxing the  obligations  of  virtue."  That  you  may 
judge  of  the  propriety  of  this  heavy  charge,  and 
whether  our  system,  or  his  own,  tend  most  to  **  relax 
the  obligations  of  virtue,"  it  seems  proper  to  inquire 
which  of  them  affords  the  most  licentious  notions  of 
virtue  itself  To  suppose  that  the  scheme  which  . 
pleads  for  relaxation,    both  in  the  precept  and  in  the  ^ 

•  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  93. 


LET.    5,]  OF    MORALITY.  71 

penalty  of  the  great  rule  of  divine  government,  shonld 
after  all,  relax,  the  least,  is  highly  paradoxical.  The 
system,  be  it  which  it  may,  that  teaches  us  to  lower 
the  standard  of  obedience,  or  to  make  light  of  the 
nature  of  disobedience,  must  surely  be  the  system 
which  relaxes  the  obligations  of  virtue,  and  conse- 
quently is  of  an  immoral  tendency. 

The  eternal  standard  of  right  and  wrong  is  the 
moral  law,  summed  up  in  love  to  God  ivit/i  all  the 
hearti  souly  mind,  and  strenf^th,  and  to  our  reighhour 
as  ourselves*  This  law  is  /io/y,  just,  and  good ;  holy, 
as  requiring  perfect  conformity  to  God  ;  just,  as  be- 
ing founded  in  the  strictest  equity  ;  and  good,  as 
being  equally  adapted  to  promote  the  hap})iness  of 
the  creature,  as  the  glory  of  the  Creator.  Nor  have 
we  any  notion  of  the  precept  of  the  law  being  abated, 
or  a  jot  or  little  of  it  being  given  up,  in  order  to  suit 
the  inclinations  of  depraved  creatures.  We  do  not 
conceive  the  law  to  be  more  strict  than  it  ought  to  be, 
even  considering  our  prest^nt  circumstances  :  because 
we  consider  the  evil  propensity  of  the  heart,  which 
alone  renders  us  incapable  of  perfect  obedience,  as  no 
excuse.  Neither  do  we  plead  for  the  relaxation  of  the 
penalty  of  the  law  upon  the  footing  of  equity;  but 
insist,  that  thou^^h  God,  through  the  mediation  of  his 
Son,  doth  not  mark  iniquity,  in  those  that  wait  on  him  ; 
yet?  he  might  do  so  consistently  with  justice,  and  that 
his  not  doing  so  is  of  u^ere  grace.  I  hope  these 
sentiments  do  not  tend  to  *'  relax  the  obligations  of 
virtue.''  Let  us  inquire  whether  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  scheme  of  our  opponents. 

It  Qiay  be  thought  that  in  these  matters,  in  some 
of  them,  at  least,  we  are  agreed.  And,  indeed,  I 
suppose  few^  will  care  to  deny  in  express  terms  that 
the  ajoral  law,  consisting*  of  a  requisition  to  iove  God 


7^  THE   STANDARD  [lET.   5. 

with  all  the  heart,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves, 
is  an  eternal  standard  of  right  and  wrong.  But  let  it 
be  considered,  whether  Socinians  in  their  descriptions 
of  virtue  and  vice,  do  not  greatly  overlook  the  former 
branch  of  it,  and  almost  con  tine  themselves  to  those 
duties  which  belong  to  the  latter.  It  has  been  long 
observed  of  writers  of  that  stamp,  that  they  exalt 
what  are  called  the  social  virtues^  or  those  virtues 
which  respect  society,  to  the  neglect,  and  often  at  the 
expense  of  others  which  more  immediately  respect 
the  God  that  made  us.  It  is  a  very  common  thing 
for  Socinians  to  make  light  of  religious  principle, 
and  to  represent  it  as  of  little  importance  to  out 
future  well-being.  Under  the  specious  name  of 
liberaliti/  of  seniiinent,  they  dispense  with  that  part 
of  the  will  of  God  which  requires  every  thought  to 
be  in  subjection  to  the  obedience  of  Christ ;  and, 
under  the  disguise  of  candour  and  charitt/,  excuse 
those  who  fall  under  the  divine  censure.  The  scrip- 
ture speaks  of  those  who  deny  the  Lord  that  bought 
thenii  bringing  upon  themselves  swift  destruction-^ 
and  of  those  who  receive  not  the  love  of  the  truths 
being  given  up  to  believe  a  lie.  But  the  minds  of 
Socinian  writers  appear  to  revolt  at  ideas  of  this  kind  ; 
the  t^uior  of  their  writings  is  to  persuade  mankind 
that  sentiments  may  be  accepted  or  rejected  without 
endangering  their  salvation.  Infidels  have  sometimes 
complained  of  Christianity,  as  a  kind  of  insult  to 
their  dignity,  on  account  of  its  dealing  in  threalenings  ; 
but  Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  Letters  to  the  Philosophers 
and  Politicians  of  France^  has  quite  removed  this 
stumbling-block  out  of  their  way.  He  accounts  for 
their  intidelity  in  such  a  way  as  to  acquit  them  of 
blame,  and  enforces  Christianity  upon  them  by  the 
most  inoffensive  motives,     Not  one  word  is  intimated 


LET.    O.J  OF    MORALITY,  }3 

as  if  there  was  any  danger  as  to  futurity,  though  they 
should  continue  infidels,  or  even  atheists,  till  death. 
The  only  string  upon  which  he  harps,  as  1  remember, 
is,  that  could  they  but  embrace  Christianity,  they 
would  be  much  happier  than  they  are  I 

If  I  entertain  degrading  notions  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  if  I  err  from  the  truth  in  so  doing,  my 
error,  according  to  jMr,  Lindsey,  is  innocent j*  and 
no  one  ought  to  tiiink  the  worse  of  me  on  that  ac- 
count. But  if  1  happen  to  be  of  opinion,  that  he  who 
rejects  the  deity  and  atonement  of  Christ  is  not  a 
christian,  I  give  great  ©tfence.  But  wherefore  ?  Sup- 
pose it  an  error,  why  should  it  not  be  as  innocent  as 
the  former  ?  and  why  ought  I  to  be  reproached  as 
aa  illiberal,  uncharitable  bigot  for  this,  while  no  one 
ought  to  think  the  worse  of  me  for  the  other  ?  Can 
this  beany  otherwise  accounted  for  than  by  supposing 
that  those  who  reason  in  this  manner,  are  more  con- 
cerned for  their  own  honour,  than  for  that  of  Christ  ? 

Dr.  Priestley,  it  may  be  noted,  makes  much  lighter 
of  error  when  speaking  on  the  supposition  of  its  being 
found  in  himself,  than  when  he  suppo^^es  it  to  be 
found  in  his  opponents.  He  charges  Mr.  Venn,  and 
ethers,  with  **  striving  to  render  those  who  differ  from 
them  in  some  specufatioe  points'  odious  to  their  fel- 
low-christians  ;"  and  elsewhere  suggests,  that,  "  we 
shall  not  be  judged  at  the  lust  day  according  to  our 
opinions,  but  our  works ;  not  according  to  what  we 
have  thought  of  Christ,  but  as  we  liave  obeyed  his 
commands  ;"t  «s  if  it  were  no  distinguishing  property 
oi  a  good  work,  that  it  originate  in  a  good  principle; 
G 
*  Apol.  4th  Edit,  p    48. 

I  Considerations  on  Difibrenccs  of  Opinion,  §  III,  Def<;nce 
^f  Unitar,  foi'irBG,  p.  59,     Do.  for  1787,  p.  CS 


74  THE    STANDARD  [lET.    5. 

and  as  if  the  meanest  opinion,  and  the  most  degrading 
thoughts  of  Jesus  Christ,  were  consistent  with  obedi- 
ence to  him.  But  when  he  himself  becomes  the 
accuser,  the  case  is  altered,  and  instead  of  reckoning 
the  supposed  errors  of  the  Trinitarians  to  be  merely 
speculative  points,  and  harmless  opinions,  they  are  said 
to  be  '«  idolatrous,  and  blasphemous/'*  But  idol- 
atry and  blasphemy  will  not  only  be  brought  into 
account  at  the  day  of  judgment,  but  be  very  offensive 
in  the  eyes  of  God.f  For  my  part,  I  am  not  offended 
with  Dr,  Priestley,  or  any  other  Socinian,  for  calling 
the  worship  that  1  pay  to  Christ,  idolatry  and  blasphe- 
-my ;  because  if  he  be  only  a  man,  what  they  say  is  just. 
If  they  can  acquit  themselves  of  sin  in  thinking  meanly 
of  Christ,  they  certainly  can  do  the  same  in  speaking 
meanly  of  him;  and  words  OMght  to  correspond  with 
thoughts.  1  only  think  they  should  not  trifle  in  such 
a  manner  as  they  do  with  error,  when  it  is  supposed 
to  have  place  in  themselves,  any  mt)re  than  when  they 
charge  it  upon  their  opponents. 

If  Dr.  Priestley  had  formed  his  estimate  of  human 
virtue  by  that  great  standard  which  requires  love  to 
God  with  all  the  heart,  soul,  mind,  and  strength,  and 
to  our  neighbour  as  ourselves  ;  instead  of  representing 
men  by  nature  as  having  "  more  virtue  than  vice,'' J 
be  must  have  acknowledged  with  the  scriptures,  that 
the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness — that  everi/  thought 
and  i7n agination  oj' their  heart,  is  onlf/  evil  continually — 
and  that  there  is  none  of  I  hem  that  doeth  good,  no, 
not  one. 

If  Mr.  Belsham,  in  the  midst  of  that  "  marvellous 
light"    which    he    professes    lately    to    have    received, 

*  ©iscouraes  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  96.    f  1  Cor.  vi.  9, 10, 
4  Lett,  to  a  Phil.  Unbeliever,  Part  I,  p.  80. 


LET.   5.]  .OF    MOHALITY.  75 

had  only  seen  the  extent  and  goodness  of  that  law 
which  requires  us  to  love  God  with  all  our  hearts, 
and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  in  the  light  in  which 
revelation  places  it  ;  he  could  not  have  trifled,  in  the 
manner  he  has,  with  the  nature  of  sin,  calling  it  "  hu- 
man frailty,''  and  the  subjects  of  it,  "  the  frail  and 
erring  children  of  men  ;"  nor  could  he  have  repre- 
sented God  in  '*  marking  and  punishing  every  in- 
stance of  it,  as  acting  the  part  of  a  merciless  tyrant.'** 
Mr.  Belsham  talks  of  '*  Unitarians  being  led  to  form 
just  sentiments  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  divine 
law,  and  the  equity  of  the  divine  government  ;"  but 
of  what  divine  law  does  he  speak  ?  Not  of  that  surel}^, 
which  requires  love  to  God  with  all  the  heart,  soul, 
mind,  and  strength,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves; 
nor  of  that  government  which  threatens  the  curse  of 
God  on  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things 
written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them  ;  for  this 
allows  not  of  a  single  transgression,  and  punishes 
evert/  instance  of  human  folly,  which  Mr.  Belsham 
considers  as  "  merciless  tyranny."  He  means  to 
insinuate,  I  suppose,  that  for  the  law  to  take  cogni- 
zance of  the  very  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart, 
at  least  of  every  instance  that  occurs,  is  unreasonable  ; 
and  that  to  inflict  punishment  accordingly  is  inequita^ 
ble,  lie  conceives  therefore  of  a  law,  it  seems,  that  is 
more  accommodated  to  the  propensities,  or,  as  he 
would  call  them,  frailties  of  the  erring  children  of 
men  ;  a  law  that  may  not  cut  ofl*  all  hopes  of  a  sinner's 
acceptance  with  God  by  the  deeds  of  it,  so  as  to 
render  an  atoning  mediator  absolutely  necessary,  and 
this  he  calls  reasonable  ;  and  of  a  government  that 
will  not  bring  every  secret  thing  into  judgment,  nor 
make  men  accountable  for   every  idle  word,  and  this 

♦-  Sermon  33 — Z5. 


7^  THE    STANDARD  [lET.   5. 

he  calls  equitable.  And  this  is  the  ^*  marvellous 
light''  of  Socinianism  ;  this  is  the  doctrine  that  is  to 
promote  a  holy  life  ;  this  is  the  scheme  of  those  who 
are  continually  branding  the  Calvinistic  system  with 
Antinomianism, 

if  the  moral  law  require  love  to  God  with  all  the 
heart,  and  soul,  and  mind,  and  strength,  and  to  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves  ;  it  cannot  allow  the  least  degree 
of  alienation  of  the  heart  from  God,  or  of  the  smallest 
instance  o^  malevolence  to  man.  And  if  it  be  what 
the  scripture  says  it  is,  holy,  just,  and  good  :  then, 
though  it  require  all  the  heart,  and  soul,  and  mind, 
and  strength,  it  cannot  be  too  strict  ;  and  if  it  be  not 
too  strict,  it  cannot  be  unworthy  of  God,  nor  can  it 
be  *'  merciless  tyranny,"  to  abide  by  it.  On  the 
contrary,  it  must  be  worthy  of  God  to  say  of  a  good 
law,  Not  a  jot  or  tittle  of  it  shall  fail. 

Dr.  jM'Gill,  in  his  Practical  Essay  on  the  Death 
of  Jesus  Christ,  maintains  that  "  The  Supreme  Law- 
giver determincvd  from  the  beginning  to  mitigate  the 
ilgour  of  the  law,  Co  make  allowances  for  human 
error  and  imperfection,  and  to  accept  of  repentance 
and  sincere  obedience,  instead  of  sinless  perfection."* 
But  if  this  were  the  determination  of  the  lawgiver, 
it  was  either  considered  as  a  matter  of  right,  or  of 
undeserved  favour.  If  the  former,  why  was  not  the 
law  so  framed  as  to  correspond  with  the  determination 
of  the  lawgiver  ?  Flow  was  it,  especially,  that  a  new 
edition  of  it  should  be  published  from  Mount  Sinai, 
and  that  without  any  such  allowances  ?  Or  if  this  could 
be  accounted  for,  how  was  it  that  Jesus  Christ  should 
declare  that  not  a  jot  or  tittle  of  it  should  fail,  and 
make  it  his  business  to  condemn  the  conduct  of  the 
Scribes   antl  Pharisees,  who  had  lowered   irts  demands, 

*  Page  252. 


X-ET.    5.]  OF   MORALITY.  77 

aad  softened  its  penalties,  with  a  view  to  **  make 
allowance  for  human  error  and  imperfection  ?''  It 
could  answer  no  good  end,  one  should  think,  to  load 
the  divine  precepts  with  threatenings  of  cruelty.  A 
law  so  loaded  would  not  bear  to  be  put  in  execution  : 
and  we  have  been  taught  by  Dr.  Priestley,  in  what  he 
has  written  on  the  Test- Act,  to  consider  *'  the  contin- 
uance of  a  law  which  will  not  bear  to  be  put  in  execu- 
tion, as  needless  and  oppressive,  and  as  what  ought 
to  be  abrogated,"*  If  repentance  and  sincere  obedi- 
ence be  all  that  ought  to  be  required  of  men  in  their 
present  state,  then  the  law  ought  to  be  so  framed, 
and  allowance  to  be  made  by  it  for  error  and  imper- 
fection. But  then  it  would  follow,  that  where  men 
do  repent,  and  are  sincere,  there  are  no  errors  and 
imperfections  to  be  allowed  for.  Errors  and  im- 
perfections imply  a  law  from  which  they  are  devia- 
tions  ;  but  if  we  be  under  no  law,  except  one  that 
allows  for  deviations,  then  we  are  as  holy,  as  we  ought 
to  be,   and    need  no  forgiveness. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  allowed  that  the  re- 
laxation of  the  law  of  innocence  is  not  what  we  have 
any  right  to  expect,  but  that  God  has  granted  u»- 
this  indulgence  out  of  pure  grace  ;  I  would  then  ask 
the  reason,  why  these  gentlemen  are  continually  ex- 
claiming against  our  principles  as  making  the  Al- 
mighty a  tyrant,  and  his  law  unreasonable  and  cruel  ? 
Is  it  tyrannical,  unreasonable,  or  cruel,  for  God  to 
withhold  what  we  have  no  riglit  to  expect  ?f 

•  Fam  Let  Letter  VL 

t  The  intelligent  reader,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  different 

sentiments  that  are  embraced  in  the  religious  world,  will  easily 

perceive  the   agreement  between  the  Socinian   and  Arminian 

systems    on    this  subject.      By   their  exclamations     on   the 

G  2 


7«  1HE    STANDARD  [j-tlT.    5. 

Dr.  Priestley  defines  justice^  as  being,  **  Snrh  a  de- 
gree of  severity,  or  pains  and  penalties  so  inflicted,  as 
will  produce  the  best  effect  with  respect  both  to  those 
who  are  exposed  to  them,  and  to  others  who  are  under 
the  same  government  :  or  in  other  words,  that  degree 
of  evil  which  is  calculated  to  produce  the  greatest  de- 
gree of  good  ;  and  if  the  punishment  exceed  this  meas- 
ure, if  in  any  instance  it  be  an  unnecessarT/,  or  useless 
suffering,  it  is  always  censured  as  cruelty^  and  is  not 
even  called  justice,  but  real  injustice."  To  this  he 
adds,  «'  If  in  any  particular  case  the  strict  execution  of 
the  law  would  do  more  harm  than  good,  it  is  univer- 
sally agreed  that  the  punishment  ought  to  be  remit- 
ted.*'* With  an  observation  or  two  on  the  above  pas- 
sage I  shall  close  this  letter. 

First,  That  all  punishments  are  designed  for  the 
good  of  the  whole,  and  less,  or  corrective  punishments 
for  the  good  of  the  offender,  is  admitted.  Every  in- 
stance of  divine  punishment  will  be  not  only  propor- 
tioned to  the  laws  of  equity,  but  adapted  to  promote 
the  good  of  the  universe  at  large.  God  never  inflicts 
punishment  for  the  sake  of  punishing.  He  has  no  such 
pleasure  in  the  death  of  a  sinner  as  to  put  him  to  pain, 
whatever  may  be  his  desert,  without  some  great  and 
good  end  to  be  answered  by  it:  but  that,  in  the  case  of 
the  finally  impenitent,  this  end  should   necessarily  in- 

injusitce  of  God  as  represented  by  the  Calvinistlc  system, 
they  both  render  that  a  debt,  which  God  in  the  whole  tenor 
of  his  word  declares  to  be  of  grace.  Neither  of  them  will 
admit  the  equity  of  the  divine  law,  and  that  man  is  thereby 
righteously  condemned  to  eternal  punishment,  antecedently 
to  the  g:race  of  the  gospel  ;  or  if  they  admit  it  in  words,  they 
will  be  ever  contradicting  it  by  the  tenor  of  their  reasonings. 

•  Utt,  to  a  Phil,  Unb.  Part  I.  pp.  100,  101. 


LET.  5.]  OF   MORALITY.  79- 

clnde  the  good  of  the  offender,  19^ as  contrary  to  reason, 
as  it  is  to  scripture.  It  does  not  appear  from  any  thing 
we  know  of  governments  either  human  or  divine,  that 
the  good  of  the  offender  is  necessarily,  and  in  all  cases, 
the  end  of  punishment.  When  a  murderer  is  execu- 
ted, it  is  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  community  ; 
but  it  would  sound  very  strange  to  say  it  was  necessary 
for  his  own  good  ;  and  that  unless  his  good  were  pro- 
moted by  it,  as  well  as  that  of  the  community,  it  must 
be  an  act  of  cruelty  ! 

Secondly,  That  there  are  cases  in  human  govern- 
ments, ill  which  it  is  right  and  necessary  to  relax  in 
the  execution  of  the  sentence  of  the  law,  is  also  admit- 
ted. But  this  arises  from  the  imperfection  of  human 
lavys.  Laws  are  general  rules  for  the  conduct  of  a 
community,  with  suitable  punishments  annexed  to  the 
breach  of  them.  But  no  general  rules  can  be  made  by 
men,  that  will  apply  to  every  particular  case.  If  Leg- 
islators were  wise  and  good  men,  and  could  foresee 
every  particular  case  that  would  arise  in  the  different 
stages  of  society,  they  would  so  frame  their  laws  as  that 
they  need  not  be  relaxed  when  those  cases  should  oc- 
cur. But  God  is  wise  and  good  ;  and,  previous  to  his 
giving  us  the  law  which  requires  us  to  love  him  with  all 
our  hearts,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  knew  every 
change  that  could  possibly  arise,  and  every  case  that 
could  occur.  The  question  therefore  is  not,  *«  If  in  any 
particular  case  the  strict  execution  of  the  law  would  do 
more  harm  than  good,  whether  it  ought  not  to  be  re- 
mitted ;  but,  whether  an  omniscient,  wise,  and  good 
law-giver,  can  be  supposed  to  have  made  a  law,  the 
penalty  of  which,  if  put  in  execution,  would  do  more 
harm  than  good  ?  Would  a  Being  of  such  a  character 
make  a  law,  the  penalty  of  which,  according  to  strict 
equity,  requires  to  be  remitted  ;  a  law  which  he  could 


B9  ON    MORALITY  [lET.    6, 

not  in  justice  abide  by,  and  that  not  only  in  a  few  sin- 
gular cases,  but  in  the  case  of  every  individual,  in 
every  age,  to  whom  it  is  given  ? 

It  is  possible  these  considerations  may  suffice  to  show 
that  the  divine  law  is  not  relaxed  ;  but,  be  that  as  it 
may,  the  question  at  issue  is,  what  is  the  moral  tendency 
of  supposing  that  it  is  ?  To  relax  a  bad  law  would  in- 
deed have  a  good  effect,  and  to  abrogate  it  would  have 
a  better  ;  but  not  so  respecting  a  good  one.  If  the  di- 
vine law  be  what  the  scripture  says  it  is,  holy^  just  and 
good  ;  to  relax  it  in  the  precept,  or  even  to  mitigate  the 
penalty,  without  some  expedient  to  secure  its  honours, 
must  be  subversive  of  good  order  ;  and  the  scheme 
which  pleads  for  such  relaxation  must  be  unfavourable 
to  holiness,  justice,  and  goodness. 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  VI. 

THE    SYSTEMS    COMPARKD,     AS     TO    THEIR   TENDENCY 
TO    PROMOTE    MORALITY    IN    GENERAL. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

WHAT  has  been  advanced  in  the  last  Letter  on  the 
standa  d  of  morality,  may  serve  to  tix  the  meaning  of 
the  term  in  this.  The  term  moraliti/y  you  know,  is 
sometimes  used  to  express  those  duties  which  subsist 
between  men  and  men,  and  in  this  acceptation  stands 
.distinguished  from  religion ;  but  I  mean  to  include 
under  it  the  whole  of  what  is  contained  in  the  moral 
law. 

Nothing  is  more  common  than  for  the  adversaries  of 
the  Calvinistic  system  to  charge  it  with  immorality  ; 
nay,  as  if  this  were  self-evident,  they  seem  to  think 


LET.  6'.]  IN    GENERAL.  9\ 

themselves  excused  from  advancing  any  thing  like  so- 
ber evidence  to  support  the  charge.  Virulence,  rant, 
and  extravagance,  are  the  weapons  with  which  we  are 
not  unfrequently  combated  in  this  warfare.  "  1  chal- 
lenge the  whole  body  and  being  of  moral  evil  itself,*' 
says  a  writer  of  the  present  day,*  "  to  invent,  or  inspire, 
or  whisper  any  thing  blacker  or  more  wicked  :  yea,  if 
sin  itself  had  all  the  wit,  the  tongues,  and  pens  of  all 
men  and  angels,  to  all  eternity,  1  defy  the  whole  to  say 
any  thing  of  God  worse  than  this.  O  sin,  thou  hast 
spent  and  emptied  thyself  in  the  doctrine  of  John  Cal- 
vin !  And  here  I  rejoice  that  1  have  heard  the  utmost 
that  malevolence  itself  shall  ever  be  able  to  say  against 
intinite  benignity  !  1  was  myself  brought  up  and  tutor- 
ed in  it,  and  being  delivered,  and  brought  to  see  the 
evil  and  danger,  am  bound  by  my  obligations  to  God, 
angels,  and  men,  to  warn  my  fellow-sinners  ;  I  there- 
fore here,  before  God,  and  the  whole  universe,  recal 
and  condemn  every  word  I  have  spoken  in  favour  of  it. 
I  thus  renounce  the  doctrine  as  the  rancour  of  devils  ;  a 
doctrine,  the  preaching  of  which  is  babbling  and  mock- 
ing, its  prayers  blasphemy,  and  whose  praises  are  the 
horrible  yellings  of  sin  and  hell.  And  this  I  do  because 
I  know  and  believe  that  God  is  love  ;  and  therefore  his 
decrees,  works,  and  ways,  are  also  love,  and  cannot  be 
otherwise."  It  were  ill-spent  time  to  attempt  an  answer 
to  such  unfounded  calumny  as  this,  which  certainly 
partakes  much  more  of  the  ravings  of  insanity,  than  of 
the  words  of  truth  and  soberness  ;  yet  this,  according 
to  the  Monthly  Revieiv,  is  "  The  true  colouring  of  the 
doctrine  of  Calvinism. ''f  Had  any  thing  like  this  beeu 
written  by  a  Calvinist  against  Socinianism,  the  Review- 
ers would  have  been  the  first  to  have  exclaimed  against 
Calvinistic  illiberality. 

•  Lewelyn's  Tracts,  p.  292.     f  Review  for  July  1792,  p-  265. 


8S:  ON    MORALITY  [lET.  6. 

This  gentleman  professes  to  have  been  a  Calvinist, 
and  so  does  Dr.  Priestley.  The  Calvinism  of  the  hit- 
ter, however,  seems  to  have  left  an  impression  upon  his 
mind  very  different  from  the  above.  "  Whether  it  be 
owing  to  my  Calvinistrcal  education,  (says  he)  or  my 
considering  the  principles  of  Calvinism  as  generally  fa- 
vourable to  that  leading  virtue,  devotion^  or  to  their  be- 
ing something  akin  to  the  doctrine  of  Necessity,  I  can- 
not but  acknowledge,  that,  notwithstanding  what  I  have 
occasionally  written  against  that  system,  and  which  I 
am  far  from  wishing  to  retract,  1  feel  myself  disposed 
to  look  upon  Caivinists  with  a  kind  of  respect,  and 
could  never  join  in  the  contempt  and  insult  with  which 
1  have  often  heard  them  treated  in  conversation."* 

But  Dr.  Priestley,  I  may  be  told,  whatever  good 
opinion  he  may  have  of  the  piety  and  virtue  of  Caivin- 
ists, has  a  very  ill  opinion  of  Calvinism  ;  and  this,  in  a 
certain  degree,  is  true.  Dr.  Priestley,  however,  would 
not  say  that,  **  The  preaching  of  that  system  was  bab- 
bling and  mocking,  its  prayers  blasphemy,  or  its  praises 
the  horrible  yellings  of  sin  and  hell  f  on  the  contrary, 
he  acknowledges  "  its  principles  to  be  generally  favour- 
able to  that  leading  virtue,  devotion,''^ 

I  confess  Dr.  Priestley  has  advanced  some  heavy 
accusations  on  the  immoral  tendency  of  Calvinism  ; 
accusations  which  seem  scarcely  consistent  with  the 
candid  concessions  just  now  quoted,  and  these  I  shall 
now  proceed  to  examine. — **  1  do  not  see,  (says  he) 
what  motive  a  Calvinist  can  liave  to  give  any  atten- 
tion to  his  moral  conduct.  So  long  as  he  is  unre- 
generate,  all  his  thoughts,  words  and  actions,  are 
necessarily  sinful,  and  in  the  act  of  regeneration  he 
is  altogether  passive.  On  this  account  the  most  con- 
sistent Caivinists  never   address    any   exhortations    to 

•  The  Doctrine  of  Philosophical  Necessity  illustrated,  p.  163, 


LET^  6.]  IN    GENERAL.  83 

sinners,  considering  them  as  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins  ;  and  therefore  that  there  would  be  as  much  sens6 
and  propriety  in  speaking  to  the  d^^ad  as  to  them. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  a  man  be  in  the  happy  number 
of  the  elect,  he  is  sure  that  God  will,  some  time  or 
other,  and  at  the  most  proper  time  (for  which  the 
last  moment  of  his  life  is  not  too  late)  work  upon 
him  his  miraculous  work  of  saving  and  sanctifj/ing 
grace^  Though  he  should  be  ever  so  wicked  immedi- 
ately before  this  divine  and  ej/'ectual  calling,  it  makes 
nothing  against  him^  N»y»  some  think  that  this  be- 
ing a  more  signal  display  of  the  wonders  of  divine 
grace,  it  is  rather  the  more  probable  that  God  will 
take  this  opportunity  to  display  it^  If  any  system 
of  speculative  principles  can  operate  as  an  axe  at 
the  root  of  all  virtue  and  goodness,  it  is  this."*  Oa 
4his  unfavourable  account  of  Calvinism,  I  would 
offer  the  following  observations  : 

First,  If  Calvinism  be  an  axe  at  the  root  of  virtue 
and  goodness,  it  is  only  so  with  respect  to  those  of  the 
**  unregenerate  ;"  which  certainly  does  not  include 
all  the  virtue  and  goodness  in  the  world.  As  to 
others.  Dr.  Priestley  acknowledges,  as  we  have  seen 
already,  that  our  principles  are  **  generally  favourable 
to  devotion  ;"  and  devotion,  if  it  be  what  he  denomi- 
nates it,  "  a  leading  virtue,"  will  doubtless  be  Jbl- 
lowed  with  other  virtues  corres[>oiident  with  it.  He 
acknowledges  also,  "  There  are  many  (among  the 
Calvinists)  whose  hearts  and  lives  are  in  all  respects 
truly  christian,  and  whose  christian  tempers  are  really 
promoted  by  their  own  vieics  of  their  sysfemy^  Mow 
is  it  then,  that  Dr.  Priestley  **  cannot  see  what  mo- 
tive a  Calvinist  can  have  to  give  any  attention  to  his 
moral  conduct  ;"    and  why  does  he   represent  Calvin- 

•  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  p.  154.  f  Ibid,  pp.  163,   164. 


84  ON    MORALITY  [lET.  6, 

ism  as  *^  an  axe  at  the  root  of  all  virtue  and  good- 
ness ?"  By  all  virtue  and  goodness  he  can  only  mean 
the  virtue  and  goodness  of  wicked  men.  Indeed  this 
appears  plainly  to  have  been  his  meaning  :  for,  after 
acknowledging  that  Calvinism  has  something  in  it 
favourable  to  **  an  habitual  and  animated  devotion," 
be  adds,  "  But  where  a  disposition  to  vice  has  pre- 
occupied the  mind,  I  am  very  well  satistied,  and  but 
too  many  facts  might  be  alledged  in  proof  of  it,  that 
the  doctrines  of  Calvinism  have  been  actually  fatal  to 
the  remains  of  virtue^  and  have  driven  men  into  the 
most  desperate  and  abandoned  course  of  wickedness  : 
whereas  the  doctrine  of  necessity,  properly  understood, 
cannot  possibly  have  any  such  effect,  but  the  con- 
trary,"* Now  suppose  all  this  were  true,  it  can 
»ever  justify  Dr.  Priestley  in  the  use  of  such  unlim- 
ited terms  as  those  before  mentioned.  Nor  is  ft  any 
disgrace  to  the  Calvinistic  system,  that  men,  whose 
minds  are  pre-occupied  with  vice,  should  misunder- 
stand and  abuse  it.  The  purest  liquor,  if  put  into 
a  musty  cask,  will  become  unpalatable.  It  is  no 
Hiore  than  is  said  of  some  who  professed  to  embrace 
Christianity  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  that  they 
turned  the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness.  Is  it 
any  wonder  that  the  wicked  will  do  wickedly  ;  or 
that  they  will  extract  poison  from  that  which,  rightly 
understood,  is  the  food  of  the  righteous  ?  It  is  enough 
if  our  sentiments,  like  God's  toords,  do  good  to  the 
upright.  Wisdom  does  not  expect  to  be  justijied^ 
but  of  her  children.  The  scriptures  themselves  make 
no  pretence  of  having  been  useful  to  those  who  have 
still  lived  in  sin  ;  but  allow  the  gospel  to  be  a  savour 
^f  death  unto  death  in  them  that  perish.  The  doc- 
trine oi'  necessity    is  as  liable  to  produce  this   effect 

*  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  p.  1(53. 


LET.  6.]  IN    GENERAL,  &S 

as  any  of  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism.  It  is  true,  as 
Dr.  Priestley  observes,  *'  It  cannot  do  so,  if  it  be 
properly  understood  ;"  but  this  is  allowing  that  it 
may  do  so,  if  it  be  misunderstood  ;  and  we  have  as  good 
reason  for  ascribing  the  want  of  a  proper  understand- 
ing of  the  subject,  to  those  who  abuse  predestination 
and  other  Calvinistic  doctrines,  as  he  has  for  ascrib- 
ing it  to  those  who  abuse  the  doctrine  of  necessity. 
Dr.  Priestley  speaks  of  the  remains  of  virtue  where 
a  disposition  to  vice  has  pre-occupifd  the  mind  ;  and 
of  the  Calvinistic  system  being  as  an  axe  at  the  root 
of  these  remains  :  but  some  people  will  question, 
whether  virtue  of  such  a  description  have  any  root 
belonging  to  it,  so  as  to  require  an  axe  to  cut  it  up  ; 
and  whether  it  be  not  owing  to  this  circumstance 
that  such  characters,  like  the  stony-ground  hearers, 
m  time   of  temptation    fall    away. 

Secondly,  The  Calvinistic  system  is  misrepresent- 
ed by  Dr.  Priestley,  even  as  to  its  influence  on  the 
unregenerate. — In  the  passage  before  quoted,  he  rep- 
resents those  persons,  **  who  are  of  the  happy  num- 
ber of  the  elect,  as  being  sure  that  God  will  some 
time  or  other  work  upon  them  his  work  of  sanctify- 
ing grace."  But  how  are  they  to  come  at  this  as- 
surance ?  Not  by  any  thing  contained  in  the  Calvin- 
istic system.  All  the  writers  in  that  scheme  have  con- 
stantly insisted,  That  no  man  has  any  warrant  to  con- 
clude himself  of  the  happy  number  of  the  elect,  till  the 
work  of  sanctifying  grace  is  actually  wrought.  With 
what  colour  of  truth,  or  ingenuousness,  then,  could 
Dr.  Priestley  represent  our  system  as  aflV>rding  a 
ground  of  assurance,  previous  to  that  event  ?  This 
is  not  a  matter  of  small  account  in  the  present  con- 
troversy ;  it  is  the  point  on  which  the  immoral  ten- 
H 


86  ON    MORALITY  [lET,    6. 

dency  of  the  doctrine  wholly  depends.  Ay  to  the 
certainty  of  any  man's  being  sanctitied  and  saved  at 
some  future  time,  this  can  have  no  ill  influence  upon 
him,  while  it  exists  merely  in  the  divine  mind.  If 
it  have  any  such  influence,  it  must  be  owing  to 
his  knowledge  of  it  at  a  time,  when,  his  heart  being 
set  on  evil,  he  would  be  disposed  to  abuse  it  ;  but 
this,  as  we  have  seen,  upon  the  Calvinistic  system, 
is  utterly  impossible;  because  nothing  short  of  a 
sanctified  temper  of  mind  affords  any  just  grounds  to 
draw  the  favourable  conclusion.  Dr.  Priestley  has 
also  represented  it  as  a  part  of  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem, or,  however,  *'  as  the  opinion  of  some,''  that 
the  more  wicked  a  man  is,  previous  to  God's  work 
of  sanctifying  grace  upon  him,  the  more  probable  it 
is  that  he  will  some  time  be  sanctitied  and  saved. 
But  though  it  be  allowed,  that  God  frequently  takes 
occasion  from  the  degree  of  human  wickedness  to 
magnify  his  grace  in  delivering  from  it  ;  yet  it  is 
no  part  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  that  the  former  af- 
fords any  grounds  of  probability  to  expect  the  latter; 
and  whoever  they  be  that  Dr.  Priestley  alludes  to  as 
entertaining  such  an  opinion,  I  am  inclined  to  think 
they  are  not  among  the  respectable  writers  of  the 
party,  and  probably  not  among  those  who  have  written 
at   all. 

Thirdly,  Let  it  be  considered.  Whether  Dr.  Priest- 
ley's own  views  of  Philosophical  Necessity  do  not 
amount  to  the  same  thing  as  those  which  he  alleges  to 
the  discredit  of  Calvinism  ;  or,  if  he  will  insist  upon 
the  contrary,  whether  he  must  not  contradict  himself, 
and  maintain  a  system,  which,  by  his  own  confession, 
is  less  friendly  to  piety  and  humility,  than  that  which 
he  opposes. — A  state  of  unregeneracy  is  considered  by 
Calvinists  as  being  the  same  thing  which  Dr.   Priestley 


LET.  6.]  IN    GENERAL.  87 

describes  as,  *^  the  state  of  a  person  who  sins  with  a  full 
consent  of  will,  and  who,  disposed  as  he  is,  is  under  an 
impossibility  of  acting  otherwise  ;  but  who,''  as  he  just- 
ly maintains,  "is  nevertheless  accountable,  even  though 
that  consent  be  produced  by  the  efficacy  and  uncon- 
querable influence  of  motives.  It  is  only,  (continues 
he)  where  the  necessity  of  sinning  arises  from  some  oth- 
er cause,  than  a  mans  own  disposition  of  mind,  that  we 
ever  say  there  is  an  impropriety  in  punishing  a  man  for 
his  conduct.  If  the  impossibility  of  acting  well  has 
arisen  from  a  bad  disposition,  or  habit,  its  having  been 
innpossible,  with  that  disposition  or  habit,  to  act  virtu- 
ously, is  never  any  reason  for  our  forbearing  punish- 
ment ;  because  we  know  that  punishment  is  proper  to 
correct  that  disposition  and  that  habit."*  Now  if  it 
be  consistent  to  punish  a  man  for  necessary  evil,  as  Dr. 
Priestley  abundantly  maintains.  Why  should  it  be 
inconsistent  to  exhort,  persuade,  reason,  or  expostulate 
with  him  ;  and  why  does  he  call  those  Calvinists  "  the 
most  consistent,"  who  avoid  such  addresses  to  their  au* 
ditors  ?  If"  the  thoughts,  words,  and  actions  of  unre- 
generate  men,  being  necessarilj^  sinful,"  be  a  just  rea- 
son why  they  should  not  have  exhortations  addressed  to 
them  ;  the  whole  doctrine  of  Necessity  must  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  use  of  means  ;  than  which  nothing  can 
be  more  contrary  to  truth,  and  to  Dr.  Priestley's  own 
views  of  things. 

As  to  our  being  passive  in  regeneration,  if  Dr. 
Priestley  would  only  admit  that  any  one  character  could 
be  found  that  is  so  depraved  as  to  be  destitute  of  all 
true  virtue,  the  same  thing  would  follow  from  his  own 
Necessarian  principles.  According  to  those  principles, 
every  man  who  is  under  the  dominion  of  a  vicious  habit 
of  mind,  will  continue  to  choose  vice,  till  such  time  as 

*  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  p.  63 — 65. 


88  ON    MORALITY  [lET.  6. 

that  habit  be  chanp^ed,  and  that  by  some  influence  with- 
out himself.  "  If  (says  he)  I  make  any  particular 
choice  to-day,  I  should  have  done  the  same  yesterday, 
and  should  do  the  same  tomorrow,  provided  there  be 
no  change  in  the  state  of  my  mind  respecting  the  ob- 
ject of  the  choice.*'*  Now  can  any  person  in  such 
a  state  of  mind  be  supposed  to  be  active  in  the 
changing  of  it  ;  for  such  activity  must  imply  an 
inclination  to  have  it  changed,  which  is  a  contradiction^ 
as  it  supposes  him  at  the  same  time  under  the  dominion 
of  evil,  and  inclined  to  goodness  ? 

But  possibly,  Dr.  Priestley  will  not  admit  that  any 
one  character  can  be  found  who  is  utterly  destitute  of 
true  virtue.  Be  it  so  ;  he  must  admit  that  in  some 
characters  vice  has  an  habitual  ascendency  :  but  the 
habitual  ascendency  of  vice  as  certainly  determines  the 
choice,  as  even  a  total  depravity,  A  decided  majority 
in  parliament  carry  every  measure  with  as  much  certain- 
ty as  if  there  were  no  minority.  Wherever  vice  is  pre- 
dominant (and  in  no  other  case  is  regeneration  needed) 
the  party  must  necessarily  he  passive  in  the  first  change 
of  his  mind  in  favour  of  virtue. 

But  there  are  seasons  in  the  life  of  the  most  vicious 
men,  in  which  their  evil  propensities  are  at  a  lower  ebb 
than  usual ;  in  which  conscience  is  alive,  and  thoughts 
of  a  serious  nature  arrest  their  attention.  At  these  fa- 
vourable moments  it  may  be  thought  that  virtue  has 
the  advantage  of  its  opposite,  and  that  this  is  the  time 
for  a  person  to  became  active  in  effecting  a  change  up- 
on his  own  mind.  Without  inquiring  whetiier  there  be 
any  real  virtue  in  all  this;  it  is  sufficient  to  observe, 
that  if  we  allow  the  whole  of  what  is  pleaded  for,  the 
objection  destroys  itself.  For  it  supposes,  that  in 
order  to  a  voluntary  activity,  in  favour  of  virtue,  the 

•  Page  7. 


LET.    6.]  IN    G  Elf  ERA  L.  8^ 

mind  must  first  be  virtuously  disposed,  and  that  bj- 
something  iu  which  it  was  passive;  which  is  giving 
up  the  point   in  dispute. 

Dr.  Priestley  often  represents  **'  a  change  of  dispo- 
sition and  character  as  being  effected  only  by  a  change 
of  coiidact,  and  that  of  long  continuance,"*  But 
whatever  influence  a  course  of  virtuous  actions  may 
have  upon  the  disposition,  and  however  it  may  tend 
to  establish  us  in  the  habit  of  doing  good,  all  good- 
ness of  disposition  cannot  arise  from  this  quarter* 
There  must  have  been  a  disposition  to  good,  and  one 
too  that  was  sufficiently  strong  to  outweigh  its  op- 
posite, ere  a  course  of  virtuous  actions  could  be  com- 
menced ;  for  virtuous  action  is  nothing  but  the  effect, 
or  expression,  of  virtuous  disposition.  To  say  that 
this  previ'ous  disposition  was  also  produced  by  other 
previous  actions,  is  only  carrj'ing  the  matter  a  little 
farther  out  of  sight  ;  for  unless  it  can  be  proved  that 
virtuous  action  may  exist  prior  to,  and  without  all 
virtuous  disposition,  let  the  one  be  carried  back  as  far  as 
it  may,  it  must  still  have  been  preceded  by  the  other; 
and  in  obtaining  the  precediiig  disposition,  the  soul 
must  necessarily  have  been  pa^^iue.f 

*  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  p.  156. 

•j-  Since  the  publication  of  the  second  edition  of  these  Let- 
ters, it  has  been  sug,^ested  by  a  friend,  that  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity for  confining,  these  observations  to  the  case  of  a  man 
totally  depraved,  or  of  one  under  the  habitual  ascendency 
of  vice  :  for  that,  according  to  Dr.  Priestley's  Necessarian 
principles,  all  volitions  are  the  effects  of  motives  :  therefore 
every  man,  in  every  volition,  as  he  is  the  subject  of  the  in- 
fluence of  motive  operating  as  a  cause,  is  passive  ;  equally 
so,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  system,  as  he  is  supposed 
to  be  in  regeneration. 

H  2 


90  ON    MORALITY  [lET.  6. 

Dr.    Priestley   labours  hard    to   overthrow    the  doc- 
trine of   immediate  divine  agency,  and  contends   that 
all  divine  influence  upon  the   human  mind  is  througt 
the    medium    of  second   causes,   or   according    to   the 
established     laws   ol    nature.     "  If  moral    impressions 
were   made   upon  men's  minds  by  an  immediate  divine 
agenc)^    to    what   end    (he   asks)    has    been   the   whole 
apparatus     of    revealed   religion  f'^      This     in    effect 
is  saying,  That  if  there  be  laws  for  such    an   operation 
on   the  human  mind,  every   kind  of  influence  upon  it 
must  be  through  the  medium  of  those  laws  ;   and   that 
if  it  be  otherwise,   there  is  no  need  of  the  use  of  means. 
But  might  he  not  as  well  allege.  That  if  there  be  laws 
by  which  the   planets  move,    every  kind    of  influence 
upon   them    must   have  been  through   the  medium  of 
those  laws  ;    and  deny  that  the   Divine  Being  immedi- 
ately, and  prior  to  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  nature, 
put  them  all  in  motion  ?    Might   he   not   as  well  ask. 
If  an  immediate  influence  could   be  exercised  in  set- 
ting the  material   system   in   motion,   of  what  use  are 
all  the  laws  of  nature  by  which   it  is  kept  in  motion  ? 
Whatever  laws  attend  the  movements  of  the  material 
system,    the   first  creation   of    it   is  allowed   to    have 
been    by    an   immediate     exertion     of    divine    power. 
God  said.    Let  there  be   light,  and  there  was  light ; 
and  why  should  not  the  second  creation  be  the  same  ? 
1  say   the  second   creation;    for  the   change  upon  the 
sinner's    heart   is   represented    as   nothing    less   in   the 
divine  word,  and  the  very  manner  of  its  being  efl*ected, 
is  expressed   in    language   which    evidently    alludes    to 
the   first  creation. — God,  who  commanded  the  light  to 
shine  out  of  darkness    hath   shined  into  our  hearts,    to 
give  the  lighjt  of  the   knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God 

♦  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  221. 


LET.  6.]  IN    GENERAL.  ^l' 

in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  Not  only  scripture,  but 
reason  itself  teaches  the  necessity  for  such  an  imme- 
diate divine  interposition  in  the  changing  of  a  sinner's 
heart.  If  a  piece  of  machinery  (suppose  the  whole 
material  system)  were  once  in  a  state  of  disorder,  the 
mere  exercise  of  those  laws  by  which  it  was  ordained 
to  move,  would  never  bring  it  into  order  again  ;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  would  drive  it  on  farther  and  farther 
to  everlasting  confusion. 

As  to  election,  Dr.  Priestley  cannot  consistently 
maintain  his  scheme  of  Necessity  without  admitting 
it.  If,  as  he  abundantly  maintains,  God  is  the 
author  of  every  good  disposition  in  the  human  heart  ;* 
and  if,  as  he  also  in  the  same  section  maintaiirs,  God, 
ip  all  that  he  does,  pursues  one  plan  or  system 
previously  concerted  ;  it  must  follow,  that  wherever 
good  dispositions  are  produced,  and  men  are  finally 
saved,  it  is  altogether  in  consequence  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  God,  which,  as  to  the  present  argument,  is 
the  same  thing  as  the   Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election. 

So  plain  a  consequence  is  this  from  Dr.  Priestley's 
Necessarian  principles,  that  he  himself,  when  writing 
his  Treatise  on  that  subject,  could  not  forbear  to 
draw  it.  **  Our  Saviour  (he  says)  seems  to  have 
considered  the  rejection  of  the  gospel  by  those  who 
boasted  of  their  wisdom, f  and  the  reception  of  it  by 
the  more  despised  part  of  mankind,  as  being  the 
consequence  of  the  express  appointment  of  God.  At 
that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank  thee,  O 
Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou  hast  hid 
these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast 
revealed  them  unto  babes  ;    even  so.   Father,  for  so  it 

*  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  §  xi. 
\  Qiiery.    Were  not  these  the  rational  rcU^ionUts  of  that  age  ? 


92  Q^    MORALITY  [lET.  6, 

secmeth  good  in  thy  sight, '^  To  the  same  purpose, 
in  the  next  page  but  one,  he  observes,  that  God  is 
considered  as  "  the  sovereign  disposer,  both  of  gospel  . 
privileges  here,  and  future  happiness  hereafter,  as 
appears  in  such  passages  as  2  Thess.  ii.  13.  God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation^  through 
sanctijication  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  of  the  truth.^^^ 
If  there  be  any  difference  between  that  election 
which  is  involved  in  Dr.  Priestley's  own  scheme,  and 
that  of  the  Calvinists,  it  must  consist,  not  in  the 
original  appointment,  or  in  the  certainty  of  the  event, 
but  in  the  intermediate  causes  or  reasons  which  in- 
duced the  Deity  to  fix  things  in  the  manner  that  he 
has  done  ;  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  even  this  can 
be  admitted.  It  is  true,  Dr.  Priestley,  by  his  ex- 
clamations against  unconditional  election^f  would 
seem  to  maintain  that  where  God  hath  appointed  a 
sinner  to  obtain  salvation,  it  is  on  account  of  his  fore- 
seen virtue  ;  and  he  may  plead  that  such  an  election 
is  favourable  to  virtue,  as  making  it  the  ground,  or 
procuring  cause  of  eternal  felicity  ;  while  an  election 
that  is  altogether  unconditional,  must  be  directly  the 
reverse.  But  let  it  be  considered,  in  the  first  place. 
Whether  such  a  view  of  election  as  this,  does  not  clash 
with  the  whole  tenor  of  scripture ;  which  teaches  us 
that  we  are  saved  and  called  with  an  holy  callings 
not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  the  di^ 
vine  purpose  and  grace  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  be» 
fore  the  world  began — iVof  of  works,  lest  any  man  should 
boast — At  this  present  time  also  there  is  a  remnant 
according  to  the  election  of  grace — And  if  by  grace» 
then  it  is  no  more  of  works  ;    otherwise  grace  is  no  more 

*  Page   140—142. 
t  Consequences  on  Difference  in  Religious  Opinions,  §  III. 


LET.  6.]  IN    GENERAL.  93 

grace.  But  if  it  he  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace  ; 
otherwise  work  is  no  more  work.*  Secondly,  Let  it 
be  considered  whether  such  an  election  will  consist 
with  Dr.  Priestley's  own  scheme  of  Necessity.  This 
scheme  supposes  that  all  virtue,  as  well  as  every  thing 
else,  is  necessary.  Now  whence  arose  the  necessity 
of  it  ?  It  was  not  self-originated,  nor  accidental  ;  it 
niust  have  been  established  by  the  Deity.  And  then 
it  will  follow,  that  if  God  elect  any  man,  on  account 
of  his  foreseen  virtue,  he  must  have  elected  him  on 
account  of  that  which  he  had  determined  to  give  him  ; 
but  this,  as  to  the  origin  of  things,  amounts  to  the 
same  thing  as  unconditional  election. 

As  to  men's  taking  liberty  to  sin,  from  the  con- 
sideration of  their  being  among  the  number  of  the 
elect  ;  that,  as  we  have  seen  already,  is  what  no  man 
can  do  with  safety  or  consistency,  seeing  he  can  have 
no  evidence  on  that  subject  but  what  must  arise  from 
a  contrary  spirit  and  conduct.  But  suppose  it  were 
otherwise,  an  objection  of  this  sort  would  come  with 
an  ill  grace  from  Dr.  Priestley,  who  encourages  all 
mankind  not  to  fear,  since  God  has  made  them  all 
for  unlimited  ultimate  happiness,  and  (whatever  be 
their  conduct  in  the  present  life)  to  ultimate  unlimited 
happiness  they  will  all  doubtless  come.f 

Upon  the  whole.  Let  those  who  are  inured  to  close 
thinking,  judge  whether  Dr.  Priestley's  own  views 
of  philosophical  Necessity,  do  not  include  the  leading 
principles  of  Calvinism  ?    But  should  he  insist  upon 

*  See  also  those  scriptures  which  represent  election  as  the 
cause  of  faith  and  holiness  ;  particularly  Ephes.  i.  3,  4.  John 
vi  57  Rom.  viii.  22,  30.  Acts  xiii  48  1  Pet.  i.  1.  Rom. 
ix.  15,  16.  But  if  it  be  the  cause,  it  cannot  be  the  effect  of 
them.  » 

f  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  pp.128,  129. 


94  ON    MORALITY  [lET.  6. 

the  contrary,  then  let  it  be  considered,  whether  he 
must  not  contradict  himself,  and  maintain  a  system, 
which,  by  his  own  confession,  is  less  friendly  to  piety 
and  humility  than  that  which  he  opposes,  *<  The 
essential  difference  (he  says)  between  the  two  schemes 
is  this  :  The  Necessarian  believes  his  own  dispositions 
and  actions  are  the  necessary  and  sole  means  of  his 
present  and  future  happiness  ;  so  that,  in  the  most 
proper  sense  of  the  words,  it  depends  entirely  on 
himself  whether  he  be  virtuous  or  vicious,  happy  or 
miserable.  The  Calvinist  maintains,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  so  long  as  a  man  is  unregenerate,  all  his 
thoughts,  words,  and  actions,  are  necessarily  sinful, 
and  in  the  act  of  regeneration  he  is  altogether  pas- 
sive,'** We  have  seen  already  that  on  the  scheme  of 
Dr.  Priestley,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Calvinists,  men 
in  the  first  turning  of  the  bias  of  their  hearts,  must 
be  passive.  But  allow  it  to  be  otherwise,  allow  what 
the  Doctor  elsewhere  teaches,  that  "  A  change  of 
disposition  is  the  effect^  and  not  the  cause  of  a  change 
of  conduct  f'f  and  that  it  depends  entirely  on  our- 
selves whether  we  will  thus  change  our  conduct,  and 
by  these  means  our  dispositions,  and  so  be  happy 
forever  ;  all  this,  if  others  of  his  observations  be  just, 
instead  of  promoting  piety  and  virtue,  will  have  a 
contrary  tendency.  In  the  same  performance  Dr. 
Priestley  acknowledges,  that,  *'  Those  who  from  a 
principle  of  religion  ascribe  more  to  God  and  less  to 
man  than  other  persons,  are  men  of  the  greatest  ele- 
vation of  piety. "J  But  if  so,  it  will  follow,  that  the 
essential  difference  between  the  necessarianism  of 
Socinians,  and  that  of  Calvinists,  (seeing  it  consists 
in  this,  that  the  one  makes  it  depend   entirely  upon 

*  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  pp.  152--154.  f  Ibid.  p.  156. 

^  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  p.  107. 


LET.  6.]  IN    GENERAL.  95 

a  man's  self,  whether  he  be  virtuous  or  vicious,  hap- 
py or  miserable,  and  the  other  upon  God)  is  in  fa- 
vour of  the  latter.  Those  wlio  consider  men  as  de- 
pending- entirely  upon  God  for  virtue  and  happiness, 
ascribe  more  to  God  and  less  to  man  than  the  other  ; 
and  so,  according  to  Dr.  Priestlej,  are,  "  men  of 
the  greatest  elevation  of  piety."  They,  on  the  other 
hand,  who  suppose  men  to  be  dependent  entirely 
upon  themselves  for  these  things,  must  consequently 
have  less  of  piety,  and  more  of  "  heathen  stoicism  ;** 
which,  as  the  same  writer,  in  the  same  treatise  ob- 
serves, "  allows  men  to  pray  for  external  things,  but 
admonishes  them  that,  as  for  virtue,  it  is  our  own, 
and  must  arise  from  within  ourselves,  if  we  have  it 
at   all."* 

But  let  us  come  to  facts.  If,  as  Dr.  Priestley  says, 
there  be  *'  something  in  our  system,  which,  if  carried 
to  its  just  consequences,  would  lead  us  to  the  most 
abandoned  wickedness  ;''  it  might  be  expected,  one 
should  think,  that  a  loose,  dishipated,  and  abandoned 
life,  would  be  a  more  general  thing  among  the  Calvin- 
ists,  than  among  their  opponents.  This  seems  to  be  a 
consequence  of  which  he  feels  the  force  ;  and  therefore 
discovers  an  inclination  to  make  it  good.  In  answer  to 
the  question,  "  Why  those  persons  who  hold  these  opin- 
ions are  not  abandoned  to  all  wickedness,  when  they 
evidently  lay  them  under  so  little  restraint  ?"  he  an- 
swers, *'  This  is  often  the  case  of  those  who  pursue 
these  principles  to  their  just  and  fatal  consequences" — 
adding,  "  For  it  is  easy  to  prove  that  the  Antinomian  is 
the  only  consistent  absolute  predestinarian.'^f  That 
there  are  persons  who  profess  the  doctrine  of  absolute 

*  Page  67. 
f  Consid.  on  X)iffer.  of  Opin,  §  iii. 


^6  ON    MORALITY  [lET,  b. 

predestination,  and  who,  from  that  consideration,  may 
indulge  themselves  in  the  greatest  enormities,  is  admit- 
ted. Dr.  Priestley,  however,  allows,  that  these  are 
"  only  such  persons  whose  minds  are  previously  deprav- 
ed ;"  that  is,  wicked  men,  who  turn  the  grace  of  God 
into  lasciviousness.  Nor  are  such  examples  "  often'*  to 
be  seen  among  us  ;  and  where  they  are,  it  is  commonly 
in  such  people  who  make  no  serious  pretence  to  personal 
religion,  but  who  have  just  so  much  of  predestination 
in  their  heads,  a^  to  suppose  that  all  things  will  be  as 
they  are  appointed  to  be,  and  therefore  that  it  is  in  vain 
to  strive  ;  just  so  much  as  to  look  at  the  end,  and  over- 
look the  means  ;  which  is  as  wide  of  Calvinism  as  it  is 
of  Socinianism.  This  may  be  the  absolute  predestina- 
tion which  Dr.  Priestley  means;  namely,  a  predestina- 
tion to  eternal  life,  let  our  conduct  be  ever  so  impure, 
and  a  predestination  to  eternal  death,  let  it  be  ever  so 
holy  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  granted  that  the  Antinomian  is 
the  only  consistent  believer  in  it  :  but  then  it  might 
with  equal  truth  be  added,  that  he  is  the  only  person 
who  believes  in  it  at  all.  The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
predestination  supposes,  that  holiness  of  heart  and  life 
is  as  much  the  object  of  divine  appointment  as  future 
happiness  ;  and  that  this  connexion  can  never  be  brok- 
en. To  prove  that  the  Antinomian  is  the  only  consist- 
ent believer  in  such  a  predestination  as  this,  may  not 
be  so  easy  a  task  as  barely  to  assert  it.  ,1  cannot  imag- 
ine it  would  be  very  easy,  especially  for  Dr.  Priestley, 
seeing  h^  acknowledges,  that  "  the  idea  of  every  thing 
being  predestinated  from  all  eternity  is  no  objection  to 
prayer i  because  all  meaiis  are  appointed  as  well  as 
ends  ;  and  therefore  if  prayer  be  in  itself  a  proper  means, 
the  end  to  be  obtained  by  it,  we  may  be  assured,  will 
not  be  had  without  thiSf  any   more   than   without   any 


LET.    6.]  IN    GENERAL.  97 

other  means,  or  necessary  previous  circumstances.*'* 
Dr.  Priestley  may  allege  that  this  is  not  absolute  pre- 
destination :  but  it  is  as  absolute  as  ours,  which  makes 
equal  provision  for  faith  and  holiness,  and  for  every 
mean  of  salvation,  as  this  does  for  prayer. 

Will  Dr.  Priestley  undertake  to  prove  that  a  loosCy 
dissipated,  and  abandoned  life,  is  a  more  general  thing 
among  the  Calvinists,  than  aynong  their  opponents  ?  I 
am  persuaded  he  will  not.  He  knows  that  the  Calvin- 
ists in  general  are  far  from  being  a  dissipated,  or  au 
abandoned  people,  and  goes  about  to  account  for  it ; 
and  that  in  a  way  that  shall  reflect  no  honour  upon  their 
principles,  "  Our  moral  conduct  (he  observes)  is  not 
left  at  the  mercy  of  our  opinions  ;  and  the  regard  to 
virtue  that  is  kept  up  by  those  who  maintain  the  doc- 
trines above-mentioned,  is  owing  to  the  influence  of 
other  principles  implanted  in  our  nature."f  Admit- 
ting this  to  be  true,  yet  one  would  think  the  worst  prin- 
ciples will,  upon  the  whole,  be  productive  of  the  v.»orst 
practices.  They  whose  innate  principles  of  virtue  are 
all  employed  in  counteracting  the  influence  of  a  per- 
nicious system,  cannot  be  expected  to  form  such  amia- 
ble characters,  as  where  those  principles  are  not  only  left 
at  liberty  to  operate,  but  are  aided  by  a  good  system. 
It  might,  therefore,  be  expected,  I  say  again,  if  our 
principles  be  what  our  opponents  say  they  are,  that  a 
loose,  dissipated,  and  abandoned  life,  would  be  a  more 
general  thing  among  us   than  among  them. 

I  may  be  told,  that  the  same  thing,  if  put  to  us, 
would  be  found  equally  difficult  ;  or  that,  notwith- 
standing we  contend  for  the  superior  influence  of  the 
Calvinistic  system  to  that  of  Socinus,  yet  we  should 

*  Let.  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Part  i.  p.  Ill, 
f  Consid.  on  Differ,  of  Opin.  §  iij. 
I 


99  ON    MORALITY  ['ET.    6, 

find  it  difficult  to  prove,  that  a  loose,  dissipated,  and 
abandoned  life,  is  a  more  general  thing  among  So- 
cinians,  than  it  is  among  Calvinists.  And  I  allow 
that  I  am  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  bulk 
of  the  people  of  that  denomination  to  hazard  an  as- 
sertion of  this  nature.  But  if  what  is  allowed  by  their 
own  writers  (who  ought  to  know  them)  may  be  ad- 
mitted as  evidence,  such  an  assertion  might  never- 
theless be  supported.  "  Rational  christians  are  often 
represented  (says  Mr.  Belsham)  as  indifferent  to  prac- 
tical religion.''  Nor  does  he  deny  the  justice  of  this 
representation,  but  admits,  though  with  apparent 
reluctance,  that  **  there  has  been  some  plausible 
ground  for  the  accusation  ;"  and  goes  about  to  ac- 
count for  it,  as  we  have  seen  in  Letter  iv.  in  such  a 
way,  however,  as  may  reflect  no  dishonour  vpon  their 
principles,*^*  The  same  thing  is  acknowledged  by 
Dr.  Priestley,  who  allows,  that  "  A  great  number  of 
the  Unitarians  of  the  present  age  are  only  men  of 
good  sense,  and  without  much  practical  religion  :"  and, 
that  '*  there  is  a  greater  apparent  conformity  to  the 
world  in  them,  than  is  observable  in  others. "f  Yet 
he  also  goes  about  to  account  for  these  things  as  Mr. 
Belsham  does,  in  such  a  way  as  may  reflect  no  dishon* 
our  on  their  principles.  It  is  rather  extraordinary, 
that  when  facts  are  introduced  in  favour  of  the  virtue 
of  the  general  body  of  the  Calvinists,  they  are  not 
denied,  but  accounted  for  in  such  a  way  that  their 
principles  must  share  none  of  the  honour  ;  and  when 
facts  of  an  opposite  kind  are  introduced  in  proof  of 
the  want  of  virtue  in  Unitarians,  they  also  are  not 
denied,  but  accounted  for  in  such  a  way  that  their 
principles  shall  have  none  of  the  dishonour.  Cal- 
vinism, it   seems,  must  be  immoral,  though  Calvinists 

•  Sermon,  p.  32.    f  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  100* 


LET.  6.]  IN    GENERAL.  99 

be  virtuous  ;  and  Socinianism  must  be  amiable, 
though  Socinians  be  vicious.  I  shall  not  inquire  wheth- 
er these  very  opposite  methods  of  accounting  for  facts 
be  fair  or  candid.  On  this  the  reader  will  form  his 
own  judgment :  it  is  enough  for  me  that  the  facts 
themselves  are  allowed. 

If  we  look  back  to  past  ages  (to  say  nothing  of 
those  who  lived  in  the  earliest  periods  of  Christianity, 
because  I  would  refer  to  none  but  such  as  are  al- 
lowed to  have  believed  the  doctrine  in  question)  I 
think  it  cannot  be  fairly  denied,  that  the  great  body 
of  holy  men,  who  have  maintained  the  true  worship 
of  God  (if  there  was  any  true  worship  of  God  main- 
tained) during  the  Romish  apostasy  ;  and  who,  many 
of  them,  sacrificed  their  earthly  all  for  his  name, 
have  lived  and  died  in  the  belief  of  the  deity  and 
atonement  of  Christ.  Our  opponents  often  speak 
of  these  doctrines  being  embraced  by  the  apostate- 
church  of  Rome  ;  but  they  say  little  of  those,  who 
during  the  long  period  of  her  usurpation,  bore  testi- 
mony for  God.  The  Waldenses,  who  inhabited  the 
vallies  of  Piedmont,  and  the  Albigenses^  who  were 
afterwards  scattered  almost  all  over  Europe,  are  al- 
lowed, 1  believe,  on  all  hands,  to  have  preserved  the 
true  religion  in  those  darkest  of  times:  and  it  is 
thought  by  some  expositors,  that  these  are  the  people 
who  are  spoken  of  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Rev- 
elation, under  the  representation  of  a  woman,  to  whom 
was  given  two  wings  of  a  great  eagle,  that  she  might 
fiy  into  the  wilderness — and  there  be  nourished  for  a 
time,  from  the  face  of  the  serpent.  It  was  here  that 
true  religion  was  maintained,  and  sealed  by  the  blood 
of  thousands  from  age  to  age,  when  all  the  rest  of 
the  christian  world  were  wondering  after  the  beast. 
And  as  to  the  doctrines  which  they   held,  they  were 


1U0  ON    MORALITY  [lET.  6« 

much  the  same  as  ours.  Among  the  adversaries  to 
the  church  of  Rome,  it  is  true,  there  might  be  men 
of  different  opinions.  Arius,  and  others,  may  be 
supposed  to  have  had  their  followers  in  those  ages. 
But  the  body  of  the  people  called  Waldenses,  are 
not  to  be  reckoned  as  such  ;  on  the  contrary,  the 
principles  which  they  professed  were  for  substance 
the  same  with  those  embraced  afterwards  by  the  re- 
formed churches  ;  as  is  abundantly  manifest  by  sev- 
eral of  their  catechisms  and  confessions  of  faith,  which 
have   been  transmitted  to  our  times. 

Mr.  Lind^ey,  in  his  Apology,  has  given  a  kind  of 
history  of  those  who  have  opposed  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  ;  but  they  make  a  poor  figure  during  the 
iibove  long  and  dark  period,  in  which,  if  ever,  a  tes- 
timony for  God  was  needed.  He  speaks  of  **  churches 
and  sects,  as  well  as  individuals  of  that  descrip- 
tion, in  the  Xllth  century ;"  and  there  might  be 
such.  But  can  he  produce  any  evidence  of  their 
having  so  much  virtue  as  to  make  any  considerable 
sacrifices  for  God  ?  Whatever  were  their  number, 
according  to  Mr.  Lindsey's  own  account,  from  that 
time  till  the  reformation  (a  period  of  three  or  four 
bun  Ired  years,  and  during  which  the  Waldenses  and 
the  WickJiffites  were  sacrificing  every  thing  for  the 
preservation  of  a  good  conscience)  they  "  were  driven 
into  corners,  and  silence.''*  That  is,  there  is  no  testi- 
mony upon  record  which  they  bore,  or  any  account  of 
their  having  so  much  virtue  in  them  as  to  oppose,  at 
the  expense  of  either  life,  liberty,  or  property,  the 
prevailing  religion  of  the   times. 

Mr.  Lindsey  speaks  of  the  piety  of  "the  famous 
Abelard  ;'*  but  surely  he  must  have  been  wretched- 
ly  driven   for   want  of  that  important  article,   or   he 

*  Chapter  i.  p.  34, 


LET.  6'.]  IN    GENERAL.  101 

would  not  have  ascribed  it  to  a  man,  who,  as  a  late 
writer  observes,  «* could  with  equal  facility  explain 
Ezekiel's  prophecies,  and  compose  amorous  sonnets 
for  Heloise  ;  and  was  equally  free  to  unfold  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  and  ruin  the  peace  of  a  family, 
by  debauching  his  patron's  niece."*  The  same  wri- 
ter, in  the  Appendix  to  his  Farewell  Sermon  to  the 
Congregation  in  Essex  Street,  lately  published,  holds 
up  the  piety  of  Servetus,  by  giving  us  one  of 
his  prayers  addressed  to  Jesus  Christ  ;  in  which  he 
expresses  his  full  persuasion  that  he  was  under  a 
divine  impulse  to  write  against  his  proper  divinity. 
Surely,  if  Socinian  piety  had  not  been  very  scarce, 
Mr.  Lindsey  would  not  have  been  under  the  necessity 
of  exhibiting  the  effusions  of  idolatry  and  enthusiasm, 
as  examples  of  it. 

Religion  will  be  allowed  to  have  some  influence 
in  the  forming  of  a  national  character  :  especially 
that  of  the  common  people,  among  whom,  if  any 
where,  it  generally  prevails.  Now  if  we  look  at 
those  nations  where  Calvinism  has  been  most  preva- 
lent, it  will  be  found,  1  believe,  that  they  have  not 
been  distinguished  by  their  immorality,  but  the  re- 
verse, Geneva,  the  Seven  United  States,  Scotland, 
and  ]\orth  America,  (with  the  two  last  of  which  we 
may  be  rather  better  acquainted  than  with  the  rest) 
might  be  alleged  as  instances  of  this  assertion.  With 
respect  to  Scotland,  though  other  sentiments  are  said 
to  have  lately  gained  ground  with  many  of  the  cler^  v  ; 
3'et  Calvinism  is  known  to  be  generally  prevalent 
among  the  serious  part  of  the  people.  And  as  to 
their  national  character,  you  seldom  know  an  intelli- 
gent Englishman  to  have  visited  that  couatry,  witli- 
I  2 

•  Mp.  Robinson's.  Plea  for  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 


ij03j  ON    MORALITIf  [lET.  6. 

out  being  struck  with  the  peculiar  sobriety,  and 
religious  behaviour  of  the  inhabitants.  As  to  America, 
though  strictly  speaking,  they  may  be  said  to  have 
no  national  religion  (a  happy  circumstance  in  their 
favour)  yet  perhaps  there  is  no  one  nation  in  the 
world  where  Calvinism  has  more  generally  prevailed. 
The  great  body  of  the  first  settlers  were  Calvinists  ; 
and  the  far  greater  part  of  religious  people  among  them, 
though  of  different  denominations  as  to  other  mat- 
ters, continue  such  to  this  day.  And,  as  to  the  mor- 
al effects  which  their  religious  principles  have  pro- 
duced, they  are  granted  on  all  hands  to  be  consider- 
able. They  are  a  people,  as  the  Mont  hit/  Reviewers 
have  acknowledged,  "  whose  love  of  liberty  is  at- 
tempered with  that  of  order  and  decency,  and  accom- 
panied with  the  virtues  of  integrity,  moderation,  and 
sobriety.  They  know  the  necessity  of  regard  to  re- 
ligion and   virtue,    both  in   principle  and   practice."* 

In  each  of  these  countries,  it  is  true,  as  in  all  oth- 
ers, there  are  great  numbers  of  irreligious  individuals  ; 
perhaps  a  majority  :  but  they  have  a  greater  propor- 
tion of  religious  characters  than  most  other  nations 
can  boast ;  and  the  influence  which  these  characters 
have  upon  the  rest,  is  as  that  of  a  portion  of  leaven 
which  leaveneth  the  whole  lump. 

The  members  of  the  church  of  England,  it  may 
be  taken  for  granted,  were  generally  Calvinists,  as 
to  their  doctrinal  sentiments,  at,  and  for  some  time 
after,  the  Reformation.  Since  that  time  those  senti- 
ments have  been  growing  out  of  repute,  and  Socinian- 
ism  is  supposed,  among  other  principles,  to  have 
prevailed  considerably  among  the  members  of  that 
community.  Dr.  Priestley,  however,  is  often  very 
sanguine  in  estimating  the  great   numbers  of  Unita- 

•  Monthly  Review  from  May  to  August,  1793,  p.  502» 


let/6.]  in  general.  103§ 

rians  among  them.  Now  let  it  be  considered,  wheth- 
er this  change  of  principle  has  in  any  degree  been 
serviceable  to  the  interests  of  piety  or  virtue.  On  the 
contrary,  did  not  a  serious  walking  with  God,  and  a 
rigid  attention  to  morals,  begin  to  die  away  from 
the  time  that  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  thirty  mne. 
articles  began  to  be  disregarded  ?*  And  now,  when 
Socinianism  is  supposed  to  have  made  a  greater  pro- 
gress than  ever  it  did  before,  is  there  not  a  greater 
degree  of  perjury,  and  more  dissipation  of  manners, 
that  at  almost  any  period  since  the  reformation  ? 

J  am  not  insensible  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  Dr. 
Priestley,  and  of  some  others,  that  men  grow  better, 
that  the  world  advances  considerably  in  moral  im- 
provement;  nay,  Mr.  Belsham  seems  to  favour  an 
idea,  that  "  in  process  of  time,  the  earth  may  revert 
to  its  original  paradisiacal  state — and  death  itself  be 
annihilated."  This  however  will  hardly  be  thought 
to  prove  any  thing,  except  that  enthusiasm  is  not 
confined  to  Calvinists,  And  as  to  men  growing  bet- 
ter, whatever  may  be  the  moral  improvement  of  the 
world  in  general,  Dr.  Priestley  somewhere  acknowl- 
edges, that  this  is  far  from  being  the  case  with  the 
church  of  England,  especially  since  the  times  of  bish- 
op Burnet.  * 

With  respect  to  the  dissenters,  were  there  ever 
men  of  holier  lives  than  the  generality  of  the  puritans 
and  nonconformists  of  the  last  two  centuries  ?  Cau 
any  thing,  equal  to  their  piety  and  devotedness  to 
God,  be  found  among  the  generality  of  the  Socinians 
of    their  time,   or    of    any    time  ?    In   sufferings,    in 

•  The  same  sort  of  people  who  held  Calvinistic  doctrines, 
were  at  the  same  time  so  severe  in  their  morals,  that  Laud 
found  it  necessary,  it  seems,  to  publish.  The  Book  of  Sport s^^ 
in  order  to  counteract  their  influence  on  the  nation  at  large.  ' 


J04  ON    MORALITY  [lET.  6. 

fastings,  in  prayers,  in  a  firm  adherence  to  their  prin- 
ciples, in  a  close  walk  with  God  in  their  families,  and 
in  a  series  of  unremitted  labours  for  the  good  of  man- 
kind, they  spent  their  lives. 

But  fastings  and  prayers,  perhap^  may  not  be 
admitted  as  excellences  in  their  character.  It  is  pos- 
sible they  may  be  treated  with  ridicule.  Nothing  less 
than  this  is  attempted  by  Dr.  Priestley  in  his  Fifth 
Letter  to  Mr.  Burn.  *'  1  could  wish  (says  he)  to 
quiet  your  fears  on  your  account.  For  the  many 
sleepless  nights  which  your  apprehensions  must  nec- 
essarily have  caused  you,  accompanied  of  course  with 
much  earnest  prayer  and  fasting,  must  in  time  affect 
your  health.'*  Candour  out  of  the  question.  Is  this 
piety  ? — It  is  said  to  be  no  uncommon  thing  for 
persons  who  have  been  used  to  pray  extempore,  when 
they  have  turned  Socinians,  to  leave  off  that  practice, 
and  betake  themselves  to  a  written  form  of  their  own 
composition.  This  is  formal  enough,  and  will  be 
thought  by  many  to  afford  but  slender  evidence  of 
their  devotional  spirit  ;  but  yet  one  would  have  sup- 
posed they  would  not  have  dared  to  ridicule  it  in  oth- 
ers, however  destitute  of  it  they  might  be  themselves. 

Dr.  Priestley  allows  that  Unitarians  are  peculiar- 
ly wanting  in  zeal  for  religion.*  That  this  concession 
is  just,  appears  not  only  from  the  indifference  of  great 
numbers  of  them  in  private  life,  but  from  the  conduct 
of  many  of  their  preachers.  It  has  l)een  observed, 
that  when  young  ministers  have  become  Socinians, 
they  have  frequently  given  up  the  ministry,  and  be- 
come school-masters,  or  any  thing  they  could.  Some, 
who  have  been  possessed  of  fortunes,  have  become 
mere  private  gentlemen.  Several  such  instances  have 
occurred  both  among  dissenters  and   churchmen.     If 

•  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  pp.  94,  95„ 


LET.  6.]  IN    GENERAL.  105- 

they  bad  true  zeal  for  God  and  religion,  why  is  it  that 
they  are  so  indifferent  about  preaching  what  they 
account   the  truth  ? 

Dr.  Priestley  farther  allows,  that  Calvinists  have 
**  less  apparent  conformity  to  the  world  ;  and  that 
they  seetn  to  have  more  of  a  real  principle  of  religion 
than  Socinians.'*  But  then  he  thinks  the  other  have 
the  most  candour  and  benevolence ;  "  so,  as  upon 
the  whole,  to  approach  nearest  to  the  proper  temper 
of  Christianity,"  He  **  hopes  also  they  have  more  of 
a  real  principle  of  religion  than  they  seein  to  have/'* 
As  to  candour  and  benevolence,  these  will  be  consid- 
ered in  another  Letter.  At  present  it  is  sufficient 
to  observe,  that  Dr.  Priestley,  like  Mr.  Belsham, 
on  a  change  of  character  in  his  converts,  is  obliged 
to  have  recourse  to  hope,  and  to  judge  of  things  con- 
trary to  what  they  appear  in  the  lives  of  men,  in  or- 
der to  support  the  religious  character  of  his  party. 

That  a  large  proportion  of  serious  people  are  to  be 
found  among  Calvinists,  Dr.  Priestley  will  not  deny  ; 
but  Mrs.  Barhauld  goes  farther.  She  acknowledges, 
in  effect,  that  the  seriousness  which  is  to  be  found 
among  Socinians  themselves,  is  accompanied  by  a 
kind  of  secret  attachment  to  our  principles ;  an  at- 
tachment which  their  preachers  and  writers,  it  seems, 
have  hitherto  laboured  in  vain  to  eradicate.  <'  These 
doctrines  (she  says)  it  is  true,  among  thinking  people, 
are  losing  ground  ;  but  there  is  still  apparent  in  that 
class  called  serious  christians,  a  tenderness  in  expos- 
ing them  ;  a  sort  of  leaning  towards  them,  as  in  v  alk- 
ing  over  a  precipice  one  should  lean  to  the  safest  side  : 
an  idea  that  they  are,  if  not  true,  at  least  good  to  be 
believed  ;    and    that   a  salutary  error  is  better  than  a 

*  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  100,  101. 


^06  ON    MORALITY    IN    GENERAL.  [lET.  b, 

dangerous  truth.''*  By  the  "  class  called  serious 
christians,"  Mrs.  Barbauld  cannot  mean  professed 
Calvinists  ;  for  they  have  no  notion  of  leaning  towards 
any  system  as  a  system  of  salutary  error,  but  consid- 
er that  to  which  they  are  attached  as  being  the  truth. 
She  must  therefore  intend  to  describe  the  serious 
part  of  the  people  of  her  own  profession.  We  are 
much  obliged  to  Mrs.  Barbauld  for  this  important 
piece  of  information.  We  might  not  so  readily  have 
known  without  it,  that  the  hearts  and  consciences  of 
the  setious  part  of  Socinians  revolt  at  their  own  prin- 
ciples ;  and  that,  though  they  have  rejected  what  they 
esteem  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel  in  theory, 
yet  they  have  an  inward  leaning  towards  them  as  the 
only  safe  ground  on  which  to  rest  their  hopes.  Ac- 
cording to  this  account  it  should  seem,  that  serious 
christians  are  known  by  their  predilection  for  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrines  ;  and  that  those  *'  thinking  people 
among  whom  these  doctrines  are  losing  ground,"  are 
not  of  that  class  or  description,  being  distinguished 
from  them.  Well,  it  does  not  surprise  us  to  hear, 
that  **  those  men  who  are  the  most  indifferent  to 
practical  religion,  are  the  JirSt,  and  serious  christians 
the  last,  to  embrace  the  rational  system,"  because  it 
is  no  more  than  might  be  expected.  If  there  be  any 
thing  surprising  in  the  affair,  it  is,  that  those  who 
make  these  acknowledgments  should  yet  boast  of 
their  principles,   on  account  of  their  moral  tendency. 

I  am,  &c. 

•  Remarks  on  Wakefield's  Enquiry. 


LET.  7.]  LOVE    TO    GOD.  107 


LETTER  \  11. 

THE    SYSTEMS    COMPARED,     AS    TO    THEIR    TENDENCY 
TO    PROMOTE    LOVE    TO    GOD, 

Christian  Brethren, 

OUR  opponents,  as  you  have  doubtless  observed, 
are  as  bold  in  their  assertions,  as  they  are  liberal  in  their 
accusations.  Dr.  Priestley  not  only  asserts  that  the 
Calvinistic  system  is  '*  unfavourable  to  genuine  piety, 
but  to  evert/  branch  of  vital  practical  religion.^'*  We 
have  considered,  in  the  foregoing  Letter,  what  relates 
to  morality  and  piety  in  general  :  in  the  following  Let- 
ters we  shall  descend  to  particulars,  and  inquire,  under 
the  several  specific  virtues  of  Christianity,  which  of  the 
systems  in  question  is  the  most  unfavourable  to  them. 

I  begin  with  love.  The  love  of  God  and  our 
neighbour,  not  only  contains  the  sum  of  the  moral  law, 
but  the  spirit  of  true  religion  ;  it  must  therefore  afford 
a  strong  presumption  for,  or  against  a  system,  as  it  is 
found  to  promote  or  diminish  these  cardinal  virtues  of 
the  christian  character.  On  both  these  topics  we  are 
principally  engaged  on  the  defensive,  as  our  views  of 
things  stand  charged  with  beins:  unfavourable  to  the 
love  of  both  God  and  man.  "  There  is  something  in 
your  system  of  Christianity,*'  says  Dr.  Priestley  in  his 
Letters  to  Mr.  Burn,  "  that  debases  the  pure  spirit  of 
it,  and  does  not  consist  with  either  the  perfect  venera- 
tion of  the  divine  character,  which  is  the  foundation  of 
true  devotion  to  God ;  or  perfect  candour  and  benevo- 
lence to  man/*  A  very  serious  charge,  and  which, 
could  it  be  substantiated,  would  doubtless  afford  a 
strong    presumption,  if    not    more  than  presumption, 

•  Consider,  on  Differ,  of  Opinion,  §  IIL 


i^lfS  LOVE    TO    GOD.  [lET.  7. 

i  against  US.  But  let  the  subject  be  examined.  This 
Letter  will  be  devoted  to  the  first  part  of  this  heavy 
charge,  and  the  following  one  to  the  last. 

As  to  the  question,  whether  we  feel  a  veneration  for 
the  divine  character?  I  should  think  we  ourselves  must 
be  the  best  judges.  All  that  Dr.  Priestley  can  know 
of  the  matter  is,  that  he  could  not  feel  a  perfect  venera- 
tion for  a  Being  of  such  a  character  as  we  suppose  the 
Almighty  to  sustain.  That,  however,  may  be  true, 
and  yet  nothing  result  from  it  unfavourable  to  our 
principles.  It  is  not  impossible  that  Dr.  Priestley 
should  be  of  such  a  temper  of  mind  as  incapacitates 
him  for  admiring,  venerating,  or  loving  God  in  his 
true  character ;  and  hence  he  may  be  led  to  think,  that 
all  who  entertain  such  and  such  ideas  of  God,  must  be 
void  of  that  perfect  veneration  for  him  which  he  sup- 
poses himself  to  feel.  The  true  character  of  God,  as 
revealed  in  the  scriptures,  must  be  taken  into  the  ac- 
count, in  determining  whether  our  love  to  God  be  gen- 
uine or  not.  We  may  clothe  the  Divine  Being  with 
such  attributes,  and  such  only,  as  will  suit  our  depraved 
taste  ;  and  then  it  will  be  no  difficult  thing  to  fall  down 
^nd  worship  him  :  bnt  this  is  not  the  love  of  God,  but 
of  an  idol  of  our  own  creating. 

The  principal  objections  to  the  Calvinistic  system, 
under  this  head,  are  taken  from  the  four  following  to- 
pics :  The  atonemeyit ;  the  vindictive  character  of  God  ; 
X\\e glory  of  God,  rather  than  the  happiness  of  creatures, 
being  his  last  end  in  creation  ;  and  the  worship  paid  to 
Jesus  Christ.  -        - 

First,  the  doctrine  of  atonement  as  held  by  the  Cal- 
vinists,  is  often  represented  by  Y^r*  Priestley  as  detract- 
ing from  the  goodness  of  God,  and  as  inconsistent  with 
\i\^  natural  placability, — He  seems  always  to  consider 
this  doctrine  as  originating  in  the  want  of  love,  or  at 


LET.  7.]  LOVE    TO    GOD.  lt)9 

kast,  of  a  sufRcient  degree  of  love  ;  as  tbotigh  God 
could  not  find  in  his  heart  to  show  mercy  without  a 
price  being  paid  for  it.  **  Even  the  elect,  (says  he) 
according  to  their  system,  cannot  he  saved  till  the  ut- 
most effects  of  the  divine  wrath  have  been  suffered  for 
them  by  an  innocent  person,*'*  Mr.  Jardine  also,  by 
the  title  which  he  has  given  to  his  late  publication, 
calling  it.  The  unpurchased  love  of  God,  in  the  redemp^ 
iion  of  the  icorld  by  Jesus  Christ;  suggests  the  same 
idea.  When  our  opponents  wish  to  make  good  the 
charge  of  our  ascribing  a  natural  implacability  to  the 
Divine  Being,  it  is  common  for  them  either  to  describe 
our  sentiments  in  their  own  language  ;  or,  if  they  deign 
to  quote  authorities,  it  is  not  from  the  sober  discussions 
of  prosaic  writers,  but  from  the  figurative  language  of 
poetry.  Mr.  Belsham  describes  *'  the  formidable  chi- 
mera of  our  imagination,  to  which,  (he  says)  we  have 
annexed  the  name  of  God  the  Father,  as  a  merciless 
tyrant."f  They  conceive  of  **  God  the  Father,*'  says 
Mr.  Lindsey,  **  always  with  dread,  as  a  Being  of  severe, 
unrelenting  justice,  revengeful,  and  inexorable,  without 
full  satisfaction  made  to  him  for  the  breach  of  his  laws. 
God  the  Son,  on  the  other  hand,  is  looked  upon  as 
made  up  of  all  com{)assion  and  goodness,  interposing  to 
save  men  from  the  Father's  wrath,  and  subjecting  him- 
self to  the  extremest  sufferings  on  that  account."  For 
proof  of  this,  we  are  referred  to  the  poetry  of  Dr,  Watts  ! 
in  which  he  speaks  of  the  rich  drops  of  Jesus'  blood, 
that  cabn\l  his  frowning  face  ;  that  spi^ink led  o'er  the 
hurning  throne^  and  turn  d  the  wrath  to  grace — 0^  the 

•  On  Dlfler.  of  Opin.  §  iii. 
J  Sermons  on  the  Importance  of  Truth,   p.  53—35. 
K 


110  XOVE    TO    GOD,  [let.  ?• 

infant  Deity ^  the  bleeding  God,  and  of  heaven  appeased 
withjiowing  blood»* 

On  this  subject,  a  Calvinist  might  without  pre- 
sumption adopt  the  language  of  our  Lord  to  the  Jews, 
/  honour  my  Father,  and  ye  do  dishonour  me.  Noth- 
ing can  well  be  a  greater  misrepresentation  of  our 
sentiments  than  this  which  is  constantly  given.  These 
writers  cannot  be  ignorant,  that  Calvinists  disavow 
considering  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  cause  of  divine 
love  or  goodness.  On  the  contrarj^,  they  always  main-, 
tain,  that  divine  love  is  the  cause,  the  first  cause  of 
our  salvation,  and  of  the  death  of  Christ  to  that  end. 
They  would  not  scruple  to  allow  that  God  had  love 
enough  in  his  heart  to  save  sinners  without  the  death 
of  his  Son,  had  it  been  consistent  with  righteousness  ; 
but  that,  as  receiving  them  to  favour  without  some 
public  expression  of  displeasure  against  their  sin, 
would  have  been  a  dishonour  to  his  government,  and 
have  afforded  an  encouragement  for  others  to  follow 
their  example  ;  the  love  of  God  ivronght  in  a  way  of 
righteousness  :  first  giving  his  oidy-begotten  Son  to 
become  a  sacrifice,  and  then  pouring  forth  all  the 
fulness  of  his  heart  through  that  appointed  medium. 
The  incapacity  of  God  to  show  mercy  without  an 
atonement,  is  no  other  than  that  of  a  righteous  gover- 
nor, who,  whatever  good-will  he  may  bear  to  an  of- 
fender, cannot  admit  the  thought  of  passing  by  the 
offence,  without  some  public  expression  of  his  dis- 
pleasure against  it;  that,  while  mercy  triumphs,  it 
may  not  be  at  the  expense  of  law  and  equity,  auH 
of  the  general  good. 

So  far  as  I  understand  it,  this  is  the  light  in  which 
Calvinists  consider  the  subject.     Now  judge,  brethren, 

•  Apology  (4th  Ed.)  p.  97,  and  Appendix  to  bis  Farewell 
Sermon,  at  Essex-street,  p.  52. 


LET.  7]  LOVE    TO    GOD.  Ill 

Whether  this  view  of  things  represent  the  divine  Be- 
ing as  natiiidlly  implacable  ?  Whether  the  gift  of 
Christ  to  die  for  us  be  not  the  strongest  expressioQ 
of  the  contrary  ?  and,  Whether  this,  or  the  system 
which  it  opposes,  "  give  wrong  impressions  concern- 
ing the  character  and  moral  government  of  God  ?" 
Nay,  I  appeal  to  your  own  hearts.  Whether  that  way 
of  saving  sinners  through  an  atonement,  in  which 
mercy  and  truth  meet  together,  righteousness  and 
peace  embrace  each  other  ;  in  which  God  is  just^ 
and  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus  ;  do 
not  endear  his  name  to  you  more  than  any  other 
representation  of  him  that  was  ever  presented  to  your 
minds  ?  Were  it  possible  for  your  souls  to  be  saved 
in  any  other  way,  for  the  divine  law  to  be  relaxed,  or 
its  penalty  remitted  without  respect  to  an  atonement  ; 
vyould  there  not  be  a  virtual  reflection  cast  upon  the 
divine  character  ?  Would  it^  not  appear  as  if  God  had 
enacted  a  law  that  was  so  rigorous  as  to  require  a 
repeal,  and  issued  threatenings  which  he  was  obliged 
to  retract  ?  Or,  at  least,  that  he  had  formed  a  sys- 
t'em  of  government  without  considering  the  circum- 
stances in  which  his  subjects  would  be  involved  ;  a 
system,  "  the  strict  execution  of  which  would  do 
more  harm  than  good  ;''  nay,  as  if  the  Almighty,  on 
this  account,  were  ashamed  to  maintain  it,  and  yet 
had  not  virtue  enougli  to  acknowledge  the  remission 
to  be  an  act  o^  justice^  but  must  all  along  call  it  by 
the  name  of  grarc  f  Would  not  the  thought  of  such 
a  reflection  destroy  the  bliss  of  heaven,  and  stamp 
such  an  impression  of  meanness  upon  that  character 
whom  you  are  taught  to  adore,  as  would  almost  in- 
capacitate yon  for  revering  or  loving  him  ? 

It  is  farther  objected,  that,  according  to  the   Cal- 
vinistic  system,  God  is   a  vindictive  Beings  and    that 


llf^  LOTE   TO    GOD.  [lET.  7. 

as  such  we  cannot  love  him. — It  is  said,  that  we  *•  rep- 
resent God  in  such  a  light,  that  no  earthly  parent 
could  imitate  him  without  sustaintns:  a  character 
shocking  to  mankind,*'  That  there  is  a  mixture  of 
the  vindictive  in  the  Calvinistic  sjstem,  is  allowed  : 
but  let  it  be  closely  considered,  whether  this  be  any 
disparagement  to  it  ?  Nay,  rather,  whether  it  be  not 
necessary  to  its  perfection  ?  The  issue  in  this  case 
entirely  depends  upon  the  question.  Whether  vindic- 
tive justice  be  in  itself  amiable  ?  If  it  be,  it  cannot 
render  any  system  unamiable.  <'  We  are  neither 
amused  nor  edified,  (says  a  writer  in  the  Montkli/ 
ReviewJ  by  the  coruscations  of  damnation.  Nor  can 
we  by  any  means  bring  ourselves  to  think,  with  the 
late  Mr.  Edwards,  that  the  vindictive  justice  of  God 
is  a  glorious  attribute.''*  This  however  may  be  very 
true,  and  vindictive  justice  be  a  glorious  attribute, 
notwithstanding. 

I  believe  it  is  very  common  for  people,  when  they 
speak  of  vindictive  punishment,  to  mean  that  kind 
of  punishment  which  is  inflicted  from  a  wrathful  dis- 
position, or  a  disposition  to  punish  for  the  pleasure 
of  punishing.  Now,  if  this  be  the  meaning  of  our 
opponents,  we  have  no  dispute  with  them.  We  do 
not  suppose  the  Almighty  to  punish  sinners  for  the 
sake  of  putting  them  to  pain.  Neither  scripture, 
nor  Calvinism,  conveys  any  such  idea.  Vindictive 
punishment,  as  it  is  here  defended,  stands  opposed 
to  that  punishment  which  is  merely  corrective  :  the 
one  is  exercised  for  the  good  of  the  party  ;  the  other 
not  so,  but  for  the  good  of  the  community.  Those 
who  deny  this  last  to  be  amiable  in  God,  must  found 
their  denial  either  on  scripture  testimony,  or  on  the 
nature  and  fitness  of  things.     As  to  the  former,  the 

*  Rev.  of  Edwards'  XXXIII  Sermons,  for  Mar.  1791. 


LET.  7.]  LOYE    TO    GOD,  113 

scriptures  will  hardly  be  supposed  to  represent  God 
as  an  unamiable  Being  ;  if  therefore  they  teach  that 
vindictive  justice  is  an  unamiable  attribute,  it  must  be 
maintained  that  they  never  ascribe  that  attribute  to 
God.  But  with  what  colour  of  evidence  can  this  be 
aHe<^ed  ?  Surely,  not  from  such  language  as  the 
following  :  The  Lord  thy  God  is  a  consuming  five^ 
even  a  jealous  God — Our  God  is  a  consuming  fire — 
God  is  jeahus,  and  the  Lord  revengeth  ;  the  Lord 
REVENGETH,  and  IS  fuTious  ;  the  Lord  ivitl  take 
VENGEANCE  OTi  his  adversaries,  and  he  reserveth 
wrath  for  his  enemies-^Who  can  stand  before  his  in- 
dignation? and  who  can  abide  in  the  fierceness  of  his 
anger  ? — His  fury  is  poured  out  like  fire — O  Lord 
God,  to  whom  vengeance  belongeth  :  O  God,  to  whom 
VENGEANCE  belongeth,  shew  thyself/ — He  that  shew- 
eth  no  mercy  shall  have  judgment  without  mercy — He 
that  made  them  tvill  not  have  mercy  on  them,  and  he 
that  formed  them  will  shew  them  no  favour — For  we 
know  him  that  hath  said.  Vengeance  belongeth  unto 
me,  I  will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord — Jt  is  a  fearful 
thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God — /  lifl 
up  my  hand  to  heaven,  and  say,  I  live  /orever.  If  £ 
whet  my  glittering  sword,  and  mine  hand  take  hold  on 
judgment,  I  will  render  vlngeance  to  mine  enemies, 
and  will  reward  them  that  hate  me — The  angels  which 
kept  not  their  first  estate,  he  hath  reserved  in  ever- 
lasting chains,  under  darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of 
the  great  day — Sodom  and  Gomorrha,  and  the  cities 
about  them  are  set  forth  for  an  example,  suffering  the 
vevgeance  of  eternal  fire — The  Lord  Jesus  shall  be 
revealed  from  heaven,  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  fiam'- 
ing  fire,    taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not 

K  2 


114  LOVE    TO    GOD,  [lET.  7* 

God^  and  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus 

Christ.* 

As  to  the  nature  and  fitness  of  things,  we  cannot 
draw  any  conclusion  frorn  thence  against  the  loveli- 
ness of  vindictive  justice,  as  a  divine  attribute,  unless 
the  thing  itself  can  be  proved  to  be  unlovely.  But 
this  is  contrary  to  the  common  sense  and  practice  of 
mankind.  There  is  no  nation  or  people  under  heaven 
but  what  consider  it  in  various  cases  as  botb  neces- 
sary and  lovely.  It  is  true,  they  would  despise  and 
"abhor  a  magistrate,  who  should  punish  beyond  desert  ; 
or  who  should  avail  himself  of  the  laws  of  his  country 
to  gratify  his  own  caprice,  or  his  private  revenge. 
This,  however,  is  not  vindictive  justice,  but  manifest 
injustice.  No  considerate  citizen  who  values  the  pub- 
lic weal,  could  blame  a  magistrate  for  putting  the 
penal  laws  of  his  country  so  far  in  execution,  as 
should  be  necessary  for  the  true  honour  of  good  gov- 
ernment, the  support  of  good  order,  and  the  terror 
of  wicked  men.  When  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah 
requested,  that  the  Levite  might  be  brought  out  to 
them  that  they  might  know  him ;  and  on  their  re- 
quest not  being  granted,  abused  and  murdered  his 
companion  ;  all  Israel,  as  one  man,  not  only  con- 
demned the  action,  but  called  upon  the  Benjamites 
to  deliver  up  the  criminals  to  justice.  Had  the  Ben- 
jamites complied  with  their  request,  and  had  those 
sons  of  Belial  been  put  to  death,  not  for  their  own 
good,  but  for  the  good  of  the  community,  where  had 
been  the  nnloveliness  of  the  procedure  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, such  a  conduct  must  have  recommended  itself 
to   the  heart  of  every    friend  of  righteousness    in  the 

*  Deut.  iv.  24.        Heb.  xii.  29.         Nahum  i.  2,  6.        Psalm 
xciv    I.         Tames  ii.  13.        Isa.  xxvii.  11.  Heb.  x.  30,  31. 

Deut.  xxxii/40,  41.    Jude  6,  7.    2  Thes.  i.  a 


LET.  7.]  LOVE    TO    GOD.  115 

universe,  as  well  as  have  prevented  the  shockin|^  ef- 
fusion of  blood  which  followed  their  refusal.  Now, 
if  vindictive  justice  may  be  glorious  in  a  human  gov- 
ernment, there  is  no  reason  to  be  drawn  from  the  na- 
ture and  Jitness  of  things,  why  it  would  not  be  the 
same  in  the  divine  administration. 

But  the  idea  on  which  our  opponents  love  principally 
to  dwell,  is  that  of  a  father.  Hence  the  charge,  that 
we  **  represent  God  in  such  a  light  that  no  earthly 
parent  could  imitate  him,  without  sustaining  a  character 
shocking  to  mankind."  This  objection  comes  with  an 
ill  grace  from  Dr.  Priestley  ;  who  teaches,  that  *'  God 
is  the  author  of  sin  ;  and  may  do  evil,  provided  it  be 
with  a  view  that  good  may  come.''*  Is  not  this  repre- 
senting God  in  such  a  light,  that  no  one  could  imitate 
him  without  sustaining  a  character  shocking  to  man- 
kind ?  Whether  Dr.  Priestley's  notions  on  this  subject 
be  true,  or  not,  it  is  true  that  God's  ways  are  so  much 
above  ours,  that  it  is  unjust  in  many  cases  to  measure 
his  conduct  to  a  rebellious  world,  by  that  of  a  father  to 
his  children. 

In  this  matter,  however,  God  is  imitable.  We  have 
seen  already  that  a  good  magistrate,  who  may  justly  be 
called  the  father  of  his  people,  ought  not  to  be  under 
the  influence  of  blind  affection,  so  as  in  any  case  to 
shew  mercy  at  the  expense  of  the  public  good.  Nor  is 
this  all  :  There  are  cases  in  which  a  parent  has  been 
obliged,  in  benevolence  to  his  family,  and  from  a  con- 
cern for  the  j^eneral  good,  to  give  up  a  stubborn  and 
rebellious  son,  to  bring  him  forth  with  his  own  hands  to 
the  elders  of  his  city,  and  there  with  his  own  lips  bear 
witness  against  him  ;  such  witness  too  as  would  subject 
him  not  to  a  mere  salutary  correction,  but  to  be  stoned 
to  death  by  the  men  of  his  city.     We  know  such  a  law 

•  On  Necessity,  p.  117 — 121. 


116  LOVE    TO    GOD.  [l^T.  ?. 

was  made  in  Israel  ;*  and  as  a  late  writer  observed  up- 
on it,  such  a  law  *'  was  wise  and  good  ;"f  it  was  calcu- 
lated to  enforce  in  parents  an  early  and  careful  educa- 
tion of  their  children  ;  aiid  if,  in  any  instance,  it  was 
executed,  it  was  that  ail  Israel  might  hear  and  fear  / 
And  how  do  we  know  but  that  it  may  be  consistent  with 
the  good  of  the  whole  system,  yea,  necessary  to  it,  that 
some  of  the  rebellious  sons  of  men,  should,  in  company 
with  apostate  angels,  be  made  examples  of  divine  ven- 
geance ;  that  they  should  stand,  like  Lot's  wife,  as 
pillars  of  salt,  or  as  everlasting  monuments  of  God's 
displeasure  against  sin  ;  and  that  while  their  smoke  ris- 
eth  up  forever  and  ever,  all  the  intelligent  universe 
should  hear  and  fear,  and  do  no  more  so  wickedly  !  In- 
deed, we  must  not  only  know,  that  this  may  be  the  case, 
but  if  we  pay  any  regard  to  the  authority  of  scri{)ture, 
that  it  25  so.  \^  words  have  any  meaning,  this  is  the 
idea  given  us  of  the  Angels  who  kept  not  their  first 
estate  ;  and  of  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  ; 
who  are  said  to  be  set  forth  for  an  example,  suj/ering 
the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire, % 

It  belongs  to  the  character  of  an  all-perfect  Being, 
who  is  the  moral  governor  of  the  universe,  to  promote 
the  good  of  the  whole  ;  but  there  may  be  cases,  as  in 
human  governments,  wherein  the  general  good  may  be 
inconsistent  with  the  happiness  af  particular  parts.  The 
case  of  robbers,  of  murderers,  or  of  traitors,  whose  lives 
aresacriticed  for  the  good  of  society,  that  the  example 
of  terror  afforded  by  their  death  may  counteract  the  ex- 
ample of  immorality  exhibited  by  their  life,  is  no  de- 
traction from  the  benevolence  of  a  government,  but 
rather  essential  to  it. 

*  Deut.  xxi.  18—21. 
I  Mr.  Robinson,    in  his    Sermon  to  the  Young  People  at 
WiUingham.  \  Jude  6,  7. 


LET.  7.]  LOVE    TO    GOD.  117 

But  how,  after  all,  can  we  love  such  a  tremendous 
Being  ?  I  answer,  a  capacity  to  resent  an  injury  is  not 
always  considered  as  a  blemish  even  in  2i  private  charac» 
ter  :  if  it  be  governed  by  justice  and  aimed  at  the  cor- 
rection of  evil,  it  is  generally  allowed  to  be  commenda- 
ble. We  do  not  esteem  the  favour  of  a  man  if  we  con* 
sider  him  as  incapable,  on  any  occasion,  of  resentment, 
M^e  should  call  him  an  easy  soul,  who  is  kind,  merely 
because  he  has  not  sense  enough  to  feel  an  insult.  But 
shall  we  allow  it  right  and  tit  for  a  puny  mortal  thus  far 
to  know  his  own  worth,  and  assert  it ;  and  at  the  same 
time  deny  it  to  the  great  Supreme,  and  plead  for  his 
being  insulted  with  impunity  ? 

God,  however,  in  the  punishment  of  sin,  is  not  to  be 
considered  as  acting  in  a  merely  private  capacity ^  but 
as  the  universal  moral  governor  ;  not  as  separate  from 
the  great  system  of  Being,  but  as  connected  with  it ; 
or  as  head  and  guardian  of  it.  Now  in  this  relation^ 
vindictive  justice  is  not  only  consistent  with  the  loveli- 
ness of  his  character,  but  essential  to  it.  Capacity  and 
inclination  to  punish  a  disorder  in  a  state,  are  never 
thought  to  render  an  earthly  prince  less  lovely  in  the 
eyes  of  his  loyal  and  faithful  subjects,  but  more  so. 
That  temper  of  mind,  on  the  contrary,  which  should 
induce  him  to  connive  at  rebellion,  however  it  might  go 
by  the  name  of  benevolence  and  mercy,  would  be  ac- 
counted by  all  the  friends  of  good  government,  injustice 
to  the  public  ;  and  those  who  in  such  cases  side  with 
the  disaffected,  and  plead  their  cause,  are  generally 
supposed  to  be  tainted  with  disaffection  themselves. 

A  third  obje-ctlon  is  taken  from  the  consideration  of 
the  gloTif  of  Gody  rather  than  the  happiness  of  creatures 
being  his  last  end  in  creation. — '*  Those  who  assume  to 
themselves  the  distinguishing  title  of  orthodox,  (says. 
Dr.  Priestley,)  consider  the  supreme  Being  as  having 


I^IS  LOVE    TO    GOD.  [lET.  ?. 

created  all  things  for  his  gfori/,  and  by  no  means  for 
the  general  happiness  of  ail  his  creatures,"*  If  by  the 
general  happiness  of  all  his  creatures.  Dr.  Priestley 
means,  the  general  good  of  the  universe,  nothing  can 
be  more  unfair  than  this  representation.  Those  who 
are  called  orthodox  never  consider  the  glory  of  God  as 
being  at  variance  with  the  happiness  of  creation  in  gen- 
eral, nor  with  that  of  any  part  of  it,  except  those  who 
have  revolted  from  the  divine  government  :  nor,  if  we 
regard  the  intervention  of  a  mediator,  with  theirs,  un- 
less they  prove  finally  impenitent,  or,  as  Dr.  Priestley 
calls  them,  *'  wilful  and  obstinate  transgressors."  The 
glory  of  God  consists,  with  reference  to  the  present 
case,  in  doing  that  which  is  best  upon  the  whole.  But 
if,  by  the  general  happine'Ss  of  all  his  creatures,  he 
means  to  include  the  happiness  of  those  angels  who 
kept  not  their  first  estate,  and  of  those  men  who  die 
impenitent;  it  is  acknowledged,  that  what  is  called  the 
orthodox  system  does  by  no  means  consider  this  as  an 
end  in  creation,  either  supreme  or  subordinate.  To 
suppose  that  the  happiness  of  all  creatures,  whatever 
might  be  their  future  conduct,  was  God's  ultimate  end 
in  creation,  (unless  we  could  imagine  him  to  be  disap- 
pointed with  respect  to  the  grand  end  he  had  in  view) 
iis  to  suppose  what  is  contrary  to  Jact,  All  creatures 
we  are  certain  are  not  happy  in  this  world  ;  and,  if  any 
regard  is  to  be  paid  to  revelation,  all  will  not  be  happy 
in  the  next. 

If  it  be  alleged,  that  a  portion  of  misery  is  necessary 
in  order  to  relish  liappiness  ;  that  therefore  the  mis- 
eries of  the  present  life,  upon  the  whole,  are  blessings  : 
and  that  the  miseries  threatened  in  the  life  to  come 
may  be  of  the  same  nature,  designed  as  a  purgation, 
by  means  of  which,  sinners  will  at  length  escape  the 

*  On  Differ,  of  Opin.  §  iii. 


LET.  7)  LOVE    TO    GOD.  1  l^ 

second  death^ — It  is  replied.  All  the  miseries  of  this 
world  are  not  represented  as  blessings  to  the  parties, 
nor  even  all  the  good  things  of  it.  The  drowning  of 
Pharaoh,  for  instance,  is  never  described  as  a  blessing 
to  him  ;  and  God  declared  that  he  had  cursed  the 
blessings  of  the  wicked  priests,  in  the  days  of  the 
prophet  Malachi.  All  things^  we  are  assured,  work 
together  for  good;  but  this  is  confined  to  those  who 
love  God,  and  are  the  called  according  to  his  purpose. 
As  to  the  life  to  come,  if  the  miseries  belonging  to  that 
state  be  merely  temporary  and  purgative,  there  must  be 
all  along  a  mixture  of  love  and  mercy  in  them  ;  whereas 
tlie  language  of  scripture  is.  He  that  hath  shewed  no 
mercy,  shall  have  judgment  without  mkrcy — The 
wine  of  the  wrath  of  God  will  be  poured  out  without 
mixture.  Nay,  such  miseries  must  not  only  contain  a 
mixture  of  love  and  mercy,  but  they  themselves  must 
be  the  effects  and  expressions  of  love  ;  and  then  it  will 
follow,  that  the  foregoing  language  of  limitation  and 
distinction  (which  is  found  indeed  throughout  the  Bible) 
is  of  no  account ;  and  that  blessings  and  curses  are  the 
same  things.  Dr.  Priestley  himself  speaks  of  "  the  laws 
of  God  as  being  guarded  with  awful  sanctions  ;"  and 
says,  that  "  God  will  inflexibly  punish  all  wilful  and 
obstinate  transgressors."*  But  how  can  that  be  called 
an  awful  sanction  which  only  subjects  a  man  to  such 
misery  as  is  necessary  for  liis  good  r  How,  at  least,  can 
that  be  accounted  e/?y?^j:i6/e  punishment  in  which  the 
divine  Being  all  along  aims  at  the  sinner's  happiness  ? 
We  might  as  well  call  the  operation  of  a  surgeon  in 
amputating  a  mortified  limb,  in  order  to  save  the  pa- 
tient's life,  by  the  name  of  inflexible  punishment,  as 
those  miseries  which  are  intended  for*  the  good  of  the 
sinner.     If  that  be  their  end,  they  are,  strictly  speaking, 

•  On  DifF.  of  Opin.  §  iil. 


120  I.OVE    TO    GOD.  [let.  ?. 

blessings,  though  blessings  in  disguise  :  and  in  that 
case,  as  Dr.  Edwards  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Chauncey 
has  fully  proved,  blessings  and  curses  are  in  effect  the 
same  things. 

As  to  our  considering  the  Supreme  Being  as  having 
created  all  things  for  his  own  glory,  I  hope  it  will  be 
allowed  that  the  scriptures  seem,  at  least,  to  countenance 
such  an  idea.  They  teach  us  that  God  made  all  things 
FOR  HIMSELF — hat  all  things  are  created  by  him,  and 
FOR  HIM.  He  is  expressly  said  to  have  created  Israel 
(and,  if  Israel,  why  not  others  ?)  for  his  glory.  Not 
only  of  him,  and  through  him,  but,  to  him  are  all 
things.  Glory,  and  honour,  and  power,  are  ascribed  to 
him,  by  the  elders  and  the  living  creatures  ;  for,  say 
they.  Thou  hast  created  all  things ;  and  for  thy 
PLEASURE  they  are  and  icere  created* 

But  farther,  and  what  is  more  immediately  to  the 
point,  I  hope  this  sentiment  will  not  be  alleged  as  a 
proof  of  oar  want  of  love  to  God  ;  for  it  is  only  assign- 
ing him  the  supreme  place  in  the  system  of  being; 
and  Dr.  Priestley  himself  elsewhere  speaks  of  "  tiie 
love  of  God,  and  a  regard  to  his  glory,'*  as  the  same 
thing.f  One  should  think  those,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  assign  the  happiness  of  creatures  as  God*s  ulti- 
mate end,  thereby  giving  him  only  a  subordinate  place 
in  the  system,  could  not  allege  this  as  an  evidence  of 
their  love  to  him.  That  place  which  God  holds  in  the 
great  system  of  being,  he  ought  to  hold  in  our  affec- 
tions; for  we  are  not  required  to  love  him  in  a  greater 
proportion  than  the  place  which  he  occupies  requires. 
If  it  were  otherwise,  our  affections  must  move  in  a  pre- 
|)osterous  direction.     We  ought,  therefore,  on  this  sup- 

•  Prov.  xvi.  4.     Col.  i.  16.      Isai    xllii.  7.      Heb.  ii.  10. 

Rom.  xi.  36.     Rev.  iv.  11. 

f  Oil  differ,  of  Opia.  §  i. 


f^ET,  7.]  LOVE    TO    GOD,  l4l? 

position,  to  love  ourselves,  our  own  happiness,  and  the 
happiness  of  our  fellow-creatures,  more  than  God  ;  for 
<jod  himself  is  supposed  to  do  the  same.  But,  if  so, 
the  great  rule  of  human  actions  sht)uld  have  been  dif- 
ferent. Instead  of  requiring  love  to  God  in  the  ^rsi 
place,  with  all  our  heart,  soul,  mind,  and  strength  ; 
and  then  love  to  ourselves,  and  our  neighbours;  it 
should  have  been  reversed.  The  song  of  the  angels, 
too,  instead  of  beginning  with  Glori/  to  God  in  the  htgh^ 
€Stf  and  ending  with  p^ace  on  earth,  and  good  toill  to 
men;  should  have  placed  the  last  lirst,  and  the  first 
last.  How  such  a  view  of  things  can  tend  to  promote  the 
love  of  God,  unless  a  subordinate  place  in  our  affections 
be  higher  than  the  supreme,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive. 

The  Great  God  who  fills  heaven  and  earth  must  b€ 
allowed  to  form  the  far  greatest  proportion,  if  I  may  so 
«peak,  of  the  whole  system  of  being;  for  compared 
with  him,  all  nations,  yea,  all  worlds,  are  but  as  a  drop 
of  a  bucket,  or  as  the  small  dust  0/ tke  balance.  He  is 
the  source  and  continual  support  of  existence  in  all  its 
varied  forms.  As  the  great  guardian  of  being  in  gen- 
eral, therefore,  it  is  fit  and  right,  that  he  should  in  the 
first  place  guard  the  glory  of  his  own  character  and 
government.  Nor  can  this  be  to  the  disadvantage  of 
the  universe,  but  the  contrary;  as  will  appear  if  it  be 
considered,  that  it  is  the  glory  of  God  to  do  that  which 
shall  be  best  upon  the  whole.  The  glory  of  God  ther^* 
fore  connects  with  it  the  general  good  of  the  created 
system,  and  of  all  its  parts,  except  those  whose  welfare 
dashes  with  the  welfare  of  the  whole. 

If  it  were  otherwise,  if  the  happiness  o^  all  creatures 
were  the  great  end  that  God  from  the  beginning  had  in 
viev/,  then  doubtless,  in  order  that  this  end  might  be 
accoraplished^  every  thing  else  must>  as  occasion  r€» 


122  LOVE   TO    GOD.  [lET.  7. 

quired,  give  way  to  it.  The  glory  of  his  own  charac- 
ter, occupying  only  a  subordinate  place  in  the  system, 
if  ever  it  should  stand  in  the  way  of  that  which  is  su- 
preme, must  give  place  among  other  things.  And  if 
God  have  consented  to  all  this,  it  must  be  because  the 
happiness,  not  only  of  creation  in  general,  but  of  every 
individual,  is  an  object  of  the  greatest  magnitude,  and 
most  fit  to  be  chosen  :  that  is,  it  is  better,  and  more 
worthy  of  God,  as  the  governor  of  the  universe,  to  give 
up  his  character  for  purity,  equity,  wisdom,  and  verac- 
ity, and  to  become  vile  and  contemptible  in  the  eyes  of 
his  creatures  ;  it  is  better  that  the  bands  which  bind  all 
holy  intelligencies  to  him  should  be  broken,  and  the 
cords  which  hold  together  the  whole  moral  system  be 
cast  away,  than  that  the  happiness  of  a  creature  should 
in  any  instance  be  given  up  !  Judge,  ye  friends  of  God, 
does  this  consist  with  '*  the  most  perfect  veneration  for 
the  divine  character  ?*' 

Once  more  :  It  seems  to  be  generally  su^xposed  by 
our  opponents,  that  the  worship  we  pay  to  Christ  tends 
to  divide  our  hearts  ;  and  that  in  proportion  as  we 
adore  him,  we  detract  from  the  essential  glory  of  the 
Father.  In  this  view,  therefore,  they  reckon  themselves 
to  exercise  a  greater  veneration  for  God  than  we.  But 
it  is  worthy  of  notice,  and  particularly  the  serious  no- 
tice of  our  opponents,  that  it  is  no  new  thing  for  an  op- 
position to  Christ  to  be  carried  on  under  the  plea  of 
love  to  God.  This  was  the  very  plea  of  the  Jews  when 
they  took  up  stones  to  stone  him.  For  a  good  work, 
said  they,  we  stove  thee  not,  but  for  that  thou,  being  a 
man,  makest  thyself  God.  They  very  much  prided 
themselves  in  their  God  ;  and  under  the  influence  of 
that  spirit  constantly  rejected  the  Lord  Jesus.  Thou 
art  called  a  Jew,  and  makest  thy  boast  of  God — We  be 
.  not  born  of  fornication ;  we  have  one  Father,  even  God 


LET.  7.]  LOVE    TO    GOD.  123 

— Give  God  the  praise,  we  hwic  that  this  man  is  a  siri" 
ner.  It  was  under  the  pretext  of  zeal  and  friendship  for 
God,  that  tliey  at  last  put  him  to  death  as  a  blasphe^ 
mer.  But  what  kind  of  zeal  was  this  ;  and  in  what 
manner  did  Jesus  treat  it  ?  Jf  God  were  your  Father 9 
said  he,  ye  tvouhl  love  me — He  that  is  of  God,  heareth 
God's  words — It  is  my  Father  that  honoureth  me,  of 
tohom  ye  say  that  he  is  your  God  ;  yet  ye  have  not 
known  him — /  know  you^  that  you  have  not  the  love  of 
God  in  you,* 

Again  :  Tiie  primitive  christians  will  be  allowed 
to  have  loved  God  aright  ;  yet  they  worshipped  Jesus 
Christ.  Not  only  did  the  martyr  Stephen  close  his 
life  by  committing  his  departing  spirit  into  the  hands 
of  Jesus,  but  it  was  the  common  practice  in  primitive 
times  to  invoke  his  name.  He  hath  authority,  said 
Ananias  concerning  Saul,  to  bind  all  that  call  on  thy 
name.  One  part  of  the  christian  mission  was  to  de- 
clare, That  whoj^oever  should  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  should  be  saved  ;  even  of  that  Lord  of  whom 
the  Gentiles  had  not  heard.  Paul  addressed  him- 
self to  all  that  in  every  place  called  upon  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ.  These  modes  of  expression  (which 
if  I  be  not  greatly  mistaken,  always  signify  divine 
worship)  plainly  inform  us,  that  it  was  not  merely  the 
practice  of  a  few  individuals,  but  of  the  great  body 
of  the  primitive  christians,  to  invoke  the  name  of 
Christ  ;  nay,  and  that  this  was  a  mark  by  which 
they  were  distinguished  as  christians.-^ 

Farther  :  It  ought  to  be  considered,  that  in  wor- 
shipping the  Son  of  God,  we  worship  him  not  on  ae- 

•  Rom  ii.  17.  John  x.  33,  viii.  41.  ix.  24.  viii.  42,  47, 
54,  55.    v.  42. 

t  Acts  ix.  14.  compared  with  Ver.  17.  Rom.  x.  11—14. 
1  Cor.  i.  2. 


IM  LOVE    TO    GOD.  [lET.  7. 

€Ount  of  that  wherein  he  differs  from  the  Father  ; 
but  on  account  of  those  perfections  which  we  believe 
him  to  possess  in  common  with  him.  This,  with  the 
consideration  that  we  worship  him  not  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  Father,  any  more  than  the  Father  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  him,  but  as  ojie  with  hiiUy  removes  all  ap- 
prehensions from  our  minds,  that  in  ascribing  glory 
to  the  one,  we  detract  from  that  of  the  other.  Nor 
can  we  think,  but  that  these  ideas  are  confirmed,  and 
the  weight  of  the  objection  removed,  by  those  dec- 
larations of  scripture  where  the  Father  and  the  Son 
are  represented  as  being  in  such  union,  that  he  tvho 
hath  seen  the  one,  hath  seen  the  other  ;  and  he  who 
honoureth  the  one,  honoureth  the  other  ;  yea,  that  he 
who  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth  not  the  Father 
who  sent  him.* 

ft  might  fairly  be  argued  in  favour  of  the  tendency 
of  Calvinistic  doctrines  to  promote  the  love  of  God, 
that  upon  those  principles  we  have  more  to  love  him  for, 
than  upon  the  otiier.  On  this  system  we  have  much 
to  be  forgiven,  and  therefore  love  much.  The  ^'x- 
pense  at  which  our  salvation  has  be*i\  obtained,  as  we 
believe,  furnishes  us  with  a  motive  of  love  to  which 
nothing  can  be  compared.  But  this  I  shall  refer  to 
Another  place  ;f  and  conclude  with  reminding  you, 
that  notwithstanding  Dr.  Priestley  loads  Calvinistic 
principles  with  such  heavy  charges  as  those  raention- 

•  John  xiv.  T — 9  v.  23.  The  reader  may  see  this  subject 
ably  urged  by  Mr.  Scott,  in  his  Mssays  oti  the  most  hnportant 
Subjects  of  religion,  First  edition,  No.  vii.  p.  96,  97.  These 
JCssays  are  of  a  piece  with  the  other  productions  of  that  ju- 
dicious writer  ;  and,  though  small,  and  for  the  convenience 
of  the  poor,  sold  for  o7ie  penny  each,  contain  a  fund  of  solldj^, 
rational,  and  scriptural  divinity. 

f  Letter  x.iY. 


LET.  8.]  ON    CANDOUR,    &G.  125 

ed  at  the  beginning   of  this  Letter,  yet  he   elsewhere 

acknowledges  thenci    to  be    "  generally    favourable    to 

that    leading  virtue,    devotion ;"     which    in    effect    is 

acknowledging   them   to  be  favourable  to  the  love  of 

God. 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  Vin. 

ON  CANDOUR  AND  BENEVOLENCE  TO  MEN. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

,  YOU  recollect  that  the  Calvinistic  system  standi 
charged  by  Dr.  Prie&tley,  not  only  with  being  incon- 
sistent with  a  perfect  veneration  of  the  divine  char- 
acter, but  with  *'  perfect  candour  and  benevolence  to 
jnan." 

This,  it  must  be  owned,  has  often  been  objected 
to  the  Calvinists.  Their  views  of  things  have  been 
supposed  to  render  them  sour  and  ill-natured  towards 
those  who  ditfer  from  them.  Charity,  candour,  be- 
nevolence, liberality,  and  the  like,  are  virtues  to 
which  Socinians,  on  the  other  hand,  lay  almost  an 
exclusive  claim.  And  such  a  weight  do  they  give 
these  virtues  in  the  scale  of  morality,  that  they  con- 
ceive themselves,  "  upon  the  wliole,  even  allowinp- 
that  they  have  more  of  an  apparent  conformity  to  the 
world  than  the  Trinitarians,  to  approach  nearer  to 
the  proper  temper  of  Christianity  than  they."* 

I  shall  not  go  about  to  vindicate  Calvinists  any 
farther  than  1  conceive  their  spirit  and  conduct  to 
admit  of  a  fair  vindication  ;  but  I  am  satisfied  that 
if  things  be  closely  examined,    it  will  be  found  that  a 

•  Dr.  Priestley's  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  100. 
L   2 


126  ON    CANDOtJii  [htt.  &4 

great  deal  of  what  our  opponents  attribute  to  tbem-i 
selves  is  not  benevolence  or  candour;  and  that  a  great 
deal  of  what  they  attribute  to  us,  is  not  owing  to 
the  want  of  either* 

Respecting  benevolence  or  good-will  to  men,  in  or- 
der to  be  genuine,  they  must  consist  with  love  to 
God,  There  is  such  a  thing  as  partiality  to  men, 
with  respect  to  the  points  in  which  they  and  tlieir 
Maker  are  at  variance  ;  but  this  is  not  benevolence. 
Partiality  to  a  criminal  at  the  bar  might  induce  us 
to  pity  him  so  far  as  to  plead  in  extenuation  of  his 
guilt,  and  to  endeavour  to  bring  him  off  from  the 
just  punishment  of  the  laws  ;  but  this  would  not  be 
benevolence.  There  must  be  a  rectitude  in  our  ac- 
tions and  affections  to  render  them  truly  virtuous. 
Regard  to  the  public  good  must  keep  pace  with 
compassion  to  the  miserable ;  else  the  latter  will  de-* 
generate  into  vice,  and  lead  us  to  be  partakers  of 
other  mens  sins.  Whatever  pretence  be  made  to  de- 
votion, or  love  to  God,  we  never  admit  them  to  be 
real,  unless  accompanied  with  love  to  men  ;  neither 
ought  any  pretence  of  love  to  men  to  be  admitted  as 
genuine,  unless  it  be  accompanied  with  love  to  God. 
JEach  of  these  virtues  is  considered  in  the  scriptures 
as  an  evidence  of  the  other.  If  a  man  say,  I  love 
God,  and  hateth  his  brother ^  he  is  a  liar — By  this 
we  know  that  we  love  the  children  of  God,  when  we 
love  God,  aiid  keep  his  commandments,* 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  partiality  to  men,  as  ob- 
served before,  with  respect  to  the  points  in  which 
they  and  their  Maker  are  at  variance ;  leaning  to 
those  notions  that  represent  their  sin  as  compara- 
tively little,  and  their  repentance  and  obedience  as 
a  balance  against  it ;   speaking    smooth  things,    and 

•  1  John  iv.  20,    v.  3. 


LET.  8.]  AND   BENEVOLENCE.  12*7 

aifording  flattering  intimations  that  without  an  atone- 
ment, nay,  even  without  repentance  in  this  lite,  all 
will  be  well  at  last.  But  if  it  should  prove,  that 
God  is  wholly  in  the  right,  and  man  wholly  in  the 
wrontj  :  that  sin  is  exceedinsr  sinful  :  that  we  all  de- 
serve  to  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord  ;  and  that,  if  we  be  not 
interested  in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  this  punish- 
ment must  actually  take  place  ; — if  these  things,  I 
say,  should  at  last  prove  true,  then  all  such  notions 
as  have  flattered  the  pride  of  men,  and  cherished 
their  presumption,  instead  of  being  honoured  with 
the  epithets  of  liberal  and  benevolent,  will  be  called 
by  very  difl'erent  names.  The  princes  and  people 
of  Judah  would  doubtless  be  apt  to  think  the  senti* 
ments  taught  by  Hananiah,  who  prophesied  smooth 
things  concerning  them,  much  more  benevolent  and 
liberal  than  those  oi*  Jeremiah ^  (ch.  28.)  who  generally 
came  with  heavy  tidings  ;  yet  true  benevolence  existed 
only  in  the  latter.  Whether  the  complexion  of  the  whole 
system  of  our  opponents  do  not  resemble  that  of  the 
false  prophets,  who  prophesied  smooth  things,  and 
healed  the  hurt  of  the  daughter  of  Israel  slightly^ 
crying,  peace,  peace,  when  there  was  no  peace  ;  and 
whether  their  objections  to  our  views  of  things  be  not 
the  same  for  substance  as  might  have  been  made  to 
the  true  prophets,  let  all  who  wish  to  know  the  truth, 
however  ungrateful  it  may  be  to  flesh  and  blood, 
decide. 

A  great  deal  of  what  is  called  candour  and  henev** 
olence  among  Socinians,  is  nothing  else  but  indijfference 
to  ail  religious  principle.  **  If  we  could  be  so  happy, 
(says  Dr.  Priestley)  as  to  believe  that  there  are  no 
errors,  but  what  men  may  be  so  circumstanced  as  to 
be  innocently  betrayed  into ;  that  any  mistake  oi  the 


I2S  ON    CANDOUR  [lET.  8. 

head  is  very  consistent  with  rectitude  of  heart ;  and 
that  all  ditfereuces  ia  modes  of  worship  may  be  only 
the  difierent  methods  by  which  ditterent  men  (who 
are  equally  the  oj/spring  of  God)  are  endeavouring  to 
honour  and  obey  their  common  parent  ;  our  diti'er- 
ences  of  opinion  would  have  no  tendency  to  lessen 
our  mutual  love  and  esteem.'**  This  is  manifestly  no 
other  than  indifference  to  all  religious  principle. 
Such  an  indifference,  it  is  allowed,  would  produce 
a  temper  of  mind  which  Dr.  Priestley  calls  candour 
and  benevolence  ;  but  which,  in  fact,  is  neither  the 
one,  nor  the  other.  Benevolence  is  good  will  to  men  ; 
but  good  will  to  men  is  very  distinct  from  a  good 
opinion  of  their  principles,  or  their  practices  ;  so  dis- 
tinct, that  the  former  may  exist  in  all  its  force,  with- 
out the  least  degree  of  the  latter.  Our  Lord  thought 
very  ill  of  the  principles  and  practices  of  the  people 
of  Jerusalem  ;  yet  he  beheld  the  citi/y  and  ivept  over  it* 
This  was  genuine  benevolence. 

Benevolence  is  a  very  distinct  thing  from  compla^' 
cency  or  esteem.  These  are  founded  on  an  approba- 
tion of  character  ;  the  other  is  not.  1  am  bound  by 
the  law  of  love  to  bear  good  will  to  men,  as  creatures 
of  God,  and  as  fellow-creatures,  so  as  by  every  mean 
in  my  power  to  promote  their  welfare,  both  as  to  this 
life,  and  that  which  is  to  come  ;  and  all  this,  let  their 
character  be  what  it  may.  1  am  also  bound  to  esteem 
every  person,  for  that  in  him  which  is  truly  amiable, 
be  he  a  friend  or  an  enemy,  and  to  put  the  best  con- 
struction upon  his  actions  that  truth  will  admit  ;  but 
no  law  obliges  me  to  esteem  a  person  respecting  those 
things  which  I  have  reason  to  consider  as  erroneous 
or  vicious.  I  may  pity  him,  and  ought  to  do  so; 
but  to  esteem  him  in  those  respects  would  be  contrary 

*  On  Dif.  of  Opin.  §  ii. 


LET.  8.]  AND    BENEYOLENCE.  I^ 

to  the  love  of  both  God  and  man.  Indifference  to 
religious  principle,  it  is  acknowledged,  will  promote 
such  esteem.  Under  the  influence  of  that  indifference 
we  may  form  a  good  opinion  of  various  characters, 
which  otherwise  we  should  not  do  ;  but  the  question 
is.  Would  that  esteem  be  right,  or  amiable  ?  On  the 
contrary,  if  religious  principle  of  any  kind  should  be 
found  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  if  benevolence  con- 
sist in  that  good-will  to  men,  which  leads  us  to  pro- 
mote their  real  welfare,  it  must  contradict  it  ;  for  the 
welfare  of  men  is  promoted  by  thinking  and  speaking 
the  truth  concerning  them.  1  might  say,  If  we  could 
be  so  happy  as  to  think  virtue  and  vice  indifferent 
things,  we  should  then  possess  a  far  greater  degree  of 
esteem  for  some  men  than  we  now  do;  but  woul4 
such  a  kind  of  esteem  be  right,  or  of  any  use  either 
to  ourselves  or  them  ? 

Candour,  as  it  relates  to  the  treatment  of  an  adversa- 
ry, is  that  temper  of  mind  which  will  induce  us  to  treat 
him  openly,,  fairly,  and  ingenuously  ;  granting  him  eve- 
ry thing  that  can  be  o ranted  consistent  with  truth,  and 
entertaining  the  most  favourable  opinion  of  his  character 
and  conduct  that  justice  will  admit.  But  what  has  all 
this  to  do  with  indifference  to  religious  principle,  as  to 
matters  of  salvation  ?  Is  there  no  such  thing  as  treating 
a  person  with  fairness^  openness,  and  generosity,  while 
we  entertain  a  very  ill  opinion  of  his  principles,  and  have 
the  most  painful  apprehensions  as  to  the  danger  of  his 
state  ?  Let  our  opponents  name  a  more  candid  writer  of 
controversy  than  President  Edwards  :  yet  he  consider- 
ed many  of  the  sentiments  against  which  he  wrote,  as 
destructive  to  the  souls  of  men,  and  those  who  held 
them  as  being  in  a  dangerous  situation. 

As  a  great  deal  of  what  is  called  candour  and  benevo- 
lenccj^  among  Socinians,  is  merely  the  effect  of  indiffer- 


130  ON    CANDOUR*^  [lET.  8" 

ence  to  religions  principle  ;  so  a  great  deal  of  that  in 
Calvinists,  for  which  they  are  accused  of  the  want  of 
these  virtues,  is  no  other  than  a  seriovs  attachment  to 
what  they  account  divine  truths  and  a  serious  disappro* 
hation  of  sentiments  which  they  deem  subversive  of  it. 
Now,  surely,  neither  of  these  things  is  inconsistent  with 
cither  candour  or  benevolence  :  if  they  be,  however, 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  are  involved  in  the  guilt, 
equally  with  the  Calvinists.  They  cultivated  such  an 
attachment  to  religious  principle,  as  to  be  in  real  earnest 
in  the  promotion  of  it  ;  and  constantly  represented  the 
knowledge  and  belief  of  it  as  necessary  to  eternal  life. 
Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  said  Christ,  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free — This  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee  the 
ifnly  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  stnt — 
He  that  believeth  on  the  5o??,  hath  everlasting  life  ;  and 
he  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life,  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him,*  They  also  constantly 
discovered  a  marked  disapprobation  of  those  sentiments 
which  tended  to  introduce  another  gospel,  so  far  us  to 
declare  that  man  accursed  who  should  propagate  them. 
They  considered  false  principles  as  pernicious  and  de- 
structive to  the  souls  of  men.  //  ye  believe  not  that  I 
am  he,  said  Christ  to  the  Jews,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins 
— and  tvhither  I  go  ye  cannot  co?ne.  To  the  Galatians, 
who  did  not  fully  reject  Christianity,  but  in  the  matter 
of  justification  were  for  uniting  the  works  of  the  law 
with  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  Paul  testified,  saying.  If 
ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.'^ 

Had  the  apostle  Paul  considered  «'  all  the  different 
modes  of  worship  as  what  might  be  only  the  different 
methods  of  different  men,  endeavouring  to  honour  and 
obey  their  common  parent  ;"  he  would  not  have  felt  his 

*  John  vili.  32.     xvii.  3.     iii.  36. 
t  John  viii.  21—24.     Gal.  i.  8.    v.  2,  3,  4; 


LET,  8.]  AND    BENEVOLENCE.  131 

spirit  stirred  in  him,  when  he  saw  the  city  of  Athens 
wholly  given  to  idolatry  :  at  least,  he  would  not  have 
addressed  idolaters  in  such  strong  language  as  he  did, 
preaching  to  them  that  they  should  turn  from  these  vani- 
ties unto  the  living  God,  Paul  considered  them  as 
having  been  all  their  life  employed,  not  in  worshipping 
the  living  God,  only  in  a  mode  ditierent  from  others, 
but  mere  vanities.  Nor  did  he  consider  it  as  a  *'  mere 
mistake  of  the  head,  into  which  they  "  might  have  beea 
innocently  betrayed  ;"  but  as  a  siii,  for  which  they  were 
without  excuse  ;  a  sin  for  which  lie  called  upon  them  in 
the  name  of  the  living  God  to  repent,* 

Now,  if  candour  and  benevolence  be  christian  virtues, 
which  they  doubtless  are,  one  should  think  they  must 
consist  with  the  practice  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
But  if  this  be  allowed,  the  main  ground  on  which  Cal- 
vinists  are  censured  will  be  removed  ;  and  the  candour 
for  which  their  opponents  plead  must  appear  to  be  spu- 
rious,  and  foreign  to  the  genuine  spirit  of  Christianity. 

Candour  and  benevolence,  as  christian  virtues,  must 
also  consist  with  each  other  ;  but  the  candour  of  Sociiii- 
ans  is  destructive  of  benevolence,  as  exemplified  in  the 
scriptures.  '  Benevolence  in  Christ  and  his  apostles  ex- 
tended not  merely,  nor  mainly,  to  the  bodies  of  men, 
but  to  their  souls  ;  nor  did  they  think  so  favourably  of 
mankind  as  to  desist  from  warning  and  alarming  them, 
but  the  reverse.  They  viewed  the  whole  world  as  lying 
in  wickedness,  in  a  perishing  condition  ;  and  hazarded 
the  loss  of  every  earthly  enjoyment  to  rescue  them  from 
it,  as  from  the  jaws  of  destruction.  Btit  it  is  easy  to 
perceive,  that  in  proportion  to  the  influence  of  Socinian 
candour  upon  us,  we  shall  consider  mankind,  even  the 
heathens,  as  a  race  of  virtuous  beings,  all  worshipping 
the  great  Father  of  creation,   only  in  difterent  modes. 

♦  Acts  xvii.  16.      xiv.  15.     Rom.  i.  20.     Acts  xvii.  30. 


132  ON    CANDOUtt  [let.  ^. 

Our  concern  for  their  salvation  will  consequently  abate, 
and  we  shall  become  so  indifferent  respecting  it,  as  nev- 
er to  take  any  considerable  pains  for  their  conversion^ 
This,  indeed,  is  the  very  truth  with  reg^ard  to  Socinians, 
They  discover,  in  general,  no  manner  of  concern  for  the 
salvation  of  either  heathens  abroad,  or  profligates  at 
home.  Their  candour  supplies  the  place  of  this  species 
of  benevolence,  and  not  unfrequently  excites  a  scornful 
smile  at  the  conduct  of  those  who  exercise  it. 

The  ditference  between  our  circumstances  and  those 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  who  were  divinely  inspired, 
however  much  it  ought  to  deter  us  from  passing  judg- 
luent  upon  the  hearts  of  individuals  ;  ought  not  to  make 
us  think  that  every  mode  of  worship  is  equally  safe,  or 
that  religious  principle  is  indifferent  as  to  the  affairs  of 
salvation  ;  for  this  would  be  to  consider  as  false,  what 
by  divine  inspiration   they  taught  as  true. 

Let  us  come  to  matters  of  fact.  Mr,  Belsham  does 
not  deny  that  Calvinists  may  be  "  pious,  candid,  and 
benevolent ;"  but  he  thinks  they  would  have  been  more 
so  if  they  had  been  Socinians.  *«  They,  and  there  are 
many  such,  (says  he)  who  are  sincerely  pious^  and  diffu- 
isively  benevolent  icith  these  principles,  could  not  have 
failed  to  have  been  much  better,  and  much  happier,  had 
they  adopted  a  milder,  a  more  rational,  a  more  truly 
evangelical  creed."*  Now,  if  this  be  indeed  the  case, 
one  might  expect  that  the  most  perfect  examples  of 
these  virtues  are  not  to  be  looked  for  among  ns,  but 
among  our  opponents  ;  and  yet  it  may  be  questioiied 
whether  they  will  pretend  to  more  perfect  examples  of 
piety,  candour,  or  benevolence,  than  are  to  be  found  in 
the  characters  of  a  Hale,  a  Franck,  a  Brainerd,  an 
Edwards,  a  Whitefield,  a  Thornton,  and  a 
Howard,    (to  say   nothing  of  the  living)   whose  lives 

*  Sermon  on  the  Importance  of  Truth/  p.  30, 


LET.  8.]         AND  BENEVOLENCE.  I^MI 

were  spent  in  doing  good  to  the  souls  and  bodies  of 
men  ;  and  who  lived  and  died  depending  on  the  aton- 
ing blood  and  justifying  righteousness  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  last  of  these  great  men,  in  whom  his 
country  glories,  and  who  is  justly  considered  as  the 
martyr  of  humanity ^  is  said  thus  to  have  expressed  him- 
self at  the  close  of  his  last  Will  and  Testament  :  "  IVJy 
immortal  spirit  I  cast  on  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  Lord  of  my  strength, 
and  I  trust  is  become  my  salvation."  He  is  said  also 
to  have  given  orders  for  a  plain  neat  stone  to  be  placed 
upon  his  grave,  with  this  inscription,  Spes  mea  Christus  : 
Christ  is  my  hope  ! 

We  are  often  reminded  of  the  persecuting  spirit  of 
Trinitarians,  and  particularly  of  Calvin  toward  Serve- 
tus.  This  example  has  been  long  held  up  by  our  oppo- 
nents, not  only  as  a  proof  of  his  cruel  disposition,  and 
odious  character,  but  as  if  it  were  sufficient  to  deter- 
mine, what  must  be  the  turn  and  spirit  of  Calvinists  in 
general.  But  sup[)osing  tlie  case  to  which  they  appeal 
were  allowed  to  prove  the  cruelty  of  Calvin's  disposi- 
tion ;  nay,  that  he  was,  on  the  whole,  a  wicked  man, 
destitute  both  of  religion  and  humanity  ;  What  would 
all  this  prove  as  to  the  tendency  of  the  system  that 
happened  to  be  called  after  his  name,  but  which  is  al- 
lowed to  have  existed  long  before  he  was  born  ?  We 
regard  what  no  njan  did  or  taught  as  oramlar,  unless 
he  could  prove  himself  divinely  inspired,  to  which  Cal- 
vin never  pretended.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  vindicate 
him,  or  any  other  man,  in  the  business  of  persecution. 
We  aVihor  every  thing  of  the  kind  as  much  as  onr  oppo- 
nents. Though  the  principles  for  which  he  contended 
appear  to  us,  in  the  main,  to  be  just  ;  yet  the  weapons 
of  his  warfare,  in  this  instance,  were  carnal. 
M 


1^4  ON    CANDOUR  [lET.  8. 

It  ought,  however,  to  be  acknowledged  on  the  other 
side,  and  if  our  opponents  possessed  all  the  candour  to 
which  they  pretend,  they  would  in  this,  as  well  as  in 
Other  cases,  acknowledge,  that  persecution  for  religious 
principles  was  not  at  that  time  peculiar  to  any  party  of 
christians,  but  common  to  all,  whenever  they  were  in- 
vested with  civil  power.  It  was  an  error,  and  a  detesta- 
ble one  ;  but  it  was  the  error  of  the  age.  They  looked 
upon  heresy  in  the  same  light  as  we  look  upon  those 
crimes  which  are  inimical  to  the  peace  of  civil  society  ; 
and,  accordingly,  proceeded  to  punish  heretics  by  the 
sword  of  the  civil  magistrate.  If  Soclnians  did  not 
persecute  their  adversaries  so  much  as  Trinitarians,  it 
was  because  they  were  not  equally  invested  with  the 
power  of  doing  so.  Mr.  Lindsey  acknowledges  that 
Fausius  Socinus  himself  was  not  free  from  persecution 
in  the  case  of  Francis  DavideSy  superintendent  of  the 
Unitarian  churches  in  Transylvania.  Davides  had 
disputed  with  Socinus  on  the  invocation  of  Christ,  and 
'*  died  in  prison  in  consequence  of  his  opinion,  and 
so  ne  offence  taken  at  his  supposed  indiscreet  propaga- 
tion of  it  from  the  pulpit.  I  wish  I  could  say,  (adds 
Mr.  Lindsey)  that  Socinus,  or  his  friend  Bjandrata,  had 
done  all  in  their  power  to  prevent  his  com^iiitment,  or 
procure  his  release  afterwards.*' — The  difference  be- 
tween Socinus  and  Davides  was  very  slight.  They  both 
held  Christ  to  be  a  mere  man.  The  former,  however, 
was  for  praying  to  him  ;  which  the  latter,  with  much 
greater  consistency,  disapproved.  Considering  this, 
the  persecution  to  which  Socinus  was  accessary  was  as 
great  as  that  of  Calvin  ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
but  that  if  Davides  had  differed  as  much  from  Socinus 
as  Servetus  did  from  Calvin,  and  if  the  civil  magistrates 
bad  been  for  buriMng  him,  Socinus  would  have  concur- 
red with  thera.     To  this  might  he  added,  that  the  con- 


LET.  8.]  AND    BENEYOLENCE.  135 

duct  ofSocinus  was  marked  with  disingenuity  ;  in  that 
he  considered  the  opinion  of  Davides  in  no  very  heinous 
point  of  light  ;  but  was  afraid  of  increasing  the  odiuna, 
under  which  he  and  his  party  aheady  lay,  among  other 
christian  churches.* 

Mr.  Robinson,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Researches^  has 
given  an  account  of  both  these  persecutions  ;  but  it  is 
easy  to  perceive  the  prejudice  under  which  he  wrote. 
He  evidently  inclines  to  extenuate  the  conduct  of  Soci- 
nus,  while  he  includes  every  possible  circumstance  that 
can  in  any  manner  blacken  the  memory  of  Calvin. 
Whatever  regard  we  may  bear  to  the  latter,  1  am  per- 
suaded we  should  not  wish  to  extenuate  his  conduct  in 
the  persecution  of  Servetus  ;  or  to  represent  it  in  softer 
terms,  nor  yet  so  soft,  as  Mr.  Robinson  has  represented 
that  of  the  former  in  the  persecution  of  Davides, 

We  do  not  accuse  Socinianism  of  being  a  persecuting 
system,  on  account  of  thi's  instance  of  misconduct  in 
Sociniis  :  Vior  is  it  any  proof  of  the  superior  candour  of 
our  opponents,  that  they  are  continually  acting  the 
very  reverse  towards  us.  As  a  Baptist^  I  might  in- 
dulge resentment  against  CVawwrr,^who  caused  some 
of  that  denomination  to  be  burned  alive  :  yet  I  am  in- 
clined to  think,  from  all  that  I  have  read  of  Cranmer, 
that  notwithstanding  his  conduct  in  those  instances,  he 
was  upon  the  whole  of  an  amiable  disposition.  Though 
he  held  with  Pedobaptism,  and  in  this  manner  defended 
it,  yet  I  should  never  think  of  imputing  a  spirit  of 
persecution  to  Pedobaptists  in  general ;  or  of  charg- 
ing their  sentiment,  in  that  particular,  with  being  of  a 
persecuting  tendency.  It  was  the  opinion  that  errone* 
ouSi  religious  principles  are  punishable  by  the  civil  mag* 
isirate,  that  did  the  mischief,  whether  at  Geneva,  in 
Transylvania,  or  in  Britain  ;  and  to  this,  rather  than  to 

*  Mr.  Lindsey's  Apol.  p.  153—156. 


138  .         ON    CANDOUR  [lET.  8» 

Trinitarianism,  or  to  Unitarianism,  it  ought  to  be 
imputed. 

We  need  not  hold  with  Mr.  Lindsey,  "  the  inno- 
cence of  error/'  in  order  to  shun  a  spirit  of  persecution. 
Though  we  conceive  of  error,  in  many  cases,  as  crimi- 
nal in  the  sight  of  God,  and  as  requiring  admonition, 
yea,  exclusion  from  a  religious  society  ;  yet,  while  we 
reject  all  ideas  of  its  exposing  a  person  to  civil  punish- 
ment, or  inconvenience,  we  ought  to  be  acquitted  of 
the  charge  of  persecution.  Where  the  majority  of  a 
religious  society  consider  the  avowed  principles  of  an 
individual  of  that  society  as  being  fundamentally  erro- 
neous, and  inconsistent  v^ith  the  united  worship  and 
well-being  of  the  whole;  it  cannot  be  persecution  to 
endeavour  by  scriptural  arguments  to  convince  him  ; 
and,  if  that  cannot  be  accomplished,  to  exclude  him 
from  their  communion. 

,  It  has  been  suggested,  that  to  think  the  worse  of  a 
person  on  account  of  his  sentiments,  is  a  species  of 
persecution,  and  indicates  a  spirit  of  bitterness  at  the 
bottom,  which  is  inconsistent  with  that  benevolence 
which  is  due  to  ail  mankind.  But  if  it  be  persecution 
to  think  the  worse  of  a  person,  on  account  of  his  sen- 
timents (unless  no  man  be  better  or  worse,  whatever 
sentiments  he  imbibes,  which  very  few  will  care  to 
assert)  then  it  must  be  persecution  for  us  to  think  of 
one  another  according  to  truth.  It  is  also  a  species 
of  persecution,  of  which  our  opponents  are  guilty  as 
well  as  we,  whenever  they  maintain  the  superior  moral 
tendency  of  their  own  system.  That  which  is  adapt- 
ed and  intended  to  do  good  to  the  party,  cannot  be 
persecution,  but  genuine  benevolence.  Let  us  sup- 
pose a  number  of  travellers,  all  proposing  to  journey 
to  one  place.  A  number  of  different  ways  present 
themselves  to  view,  and  each  appears  to  be  the  right 


LET.  8.]  AND    BENEVOLENCE,  137 

way.  Some  are  inclined  to  one,  sonae  to  another  ; 
and  some  contend  that,  whatever  smaller  difference 
there  may  be  between  them,  they  all  lead  to  the  same 
end.  Others,  however,  are  persuaded  that  they  all 
do  not  terminate  in  the  same  end ;  and  appeal  to  a 
correct  map  of  the  country,  which  points  out  a  num- 
ber of  bye-paths,  resembling  those  in  question,  each 
leading  to  a  fatal  issue.  Query,  Would  it  be  the  part 
of  benevolence,  in  this  case,  for  the  latter  to  keep 
silence,  and  hope  the  best  ;  or  to  state  the  evidence 
on  which  their  apprehensions  were  founded,  and  to 
warn    their  fellow-travellers  of  their  danger  ? 

There  are,  it  is  acknowledged,  many  instances  of 
a  want  of  candour  and  benevolence  among  us ;  over 
which  it  becomes  us  to  lament.  This  is  the  case  es- 
pecially with  those  whom  Dr.  Priestley  is  pleased 
to  call  "the  anly  consistent  absolute  Predestinarians." 
1  may  add,  there  has  been,  in  my  opinion,  a  great 
deal  too  much  haughtiness  and  uncandidness  discov- 
ered by  some  of  the  Trinitarians  of  the  established 
church,  in  their  controversies  with  Socinian  dissenters. 
Th^se  dispositions,  however,  do  not  belong  to  them  as 
Trinitarians,  but  as  churchmen.  A  slight  observa- 
tion of  human  nature  will  convince  us,  that  the  ad- 
herents to  a  religion  established  by  law,  let  their  sen- 
timents be  what  they  may,  will  always  be  under  a 
powerful  temptation  to  take  it  for  granted  that  they 
are  right,  and  that  all  who  dissent  from  them  are  con- 
temptible sectaries,  unworthy  of  a  candid  and  re- 
spectful treatment.  This  temptation,  it  is  true,  will 
not  have  equal  effect  upon  all  in  the  same  community. 
Serious  and  humble  characters  will  watch  against  it  ; 
and,  being  wise  enough  to  know  that  real  worth  is  not 
derived  from  any  thing  merely  external,  they  may  be 
M  2 


138  ON   CANDOtH  [let.  8. 

superior  to  it.  But  those  of  another  description  will 
be  very  ditferently  affected. 

There  is,  indeed,  a  mixture  of  evil  passions  in  all 
our  religious  affections,  against  which  it  becomes  us 
to  watch  and  pray.  I  see  many  things  in  those  of 
my  own  sentiments  which  I  cannot  approve  ;  and, 
possibly,  others  may  see  the  same  in  me.  And  should 
the  Socinians  pretend  to  the  contrary,  with  respect 
to  themselves,  or  aspire  at  a  superiority  to  their  neigh- 
bours, it  may  be  more  than  they  are  able  to  maintain. 
It  cannot  escape  the  observation  of  thinking  and  im- 
partial men,  that  the  candour  of  which  they  so  fre- 
quently boast,  is  pretty  much  confined  to  their  own 
party,  or  those  that  are  near  a-kin  to  them.  Socinians 
can  be  candid  to  Arians,  and  Arians  to  Socinians,  and 
each  of  them  to  deists;  but  if  Calvinists  expect  a 
share  of  their  tenderness,  let  them  not  greatly  wonder 
if  they  be  disappointed.  There  need  not  be  a  greater 
or  a  more  standing  proof  of  this,  than  the  manner  in 
which  the  writings  of  the  latter  are  treated  in  the 
Monthly  Review. 

It  has  been  frequently  observed,  that  though  So- 
cinian  writers  plead  so  much  for  candour  and  esteem 
among  professing  christians,  yet,  generally  speaking, 
there  is  such  a  mixture  of  scornful  contempt  discover- 
ed towards  their  opponents,  as  renders  their  profes- 
sions far  irom  consistent.  Mr.  Lindsey  very  charita- 
bly accounts  for  our  errors,  by  asserting  that  "  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  being  possessed  of  two  natures, 
is  the  fiction  of  ingenious  men,  determined  at  all 
events  to  believe  Christ  to  he  a  different  Being  from 
what  he  really  was,  and  uniformly  declared  himself  to 
he ;  by  which  fiction  of  their's  they  elude  the  plain- 
est declarations  of  scripture  concerning  him,  and  will 
prote  him  to  be  the  most  high  God,  in  spite  of  his  own 


LET.  8.]  AND    BENEVOLEXCE.  139 

most  express  and  constant  language  to  the  contrary. 
And  as  there  is  no  reasoning  with  such  persons,  they 
are  to  be  pitied,  and  considered  as  being  under  a 
debility  of  mind  in  this  respect,  however  sensible  and 
rational  in  others/'*  Would  Mr,  Lindsey  wish  to 
have  this  considered  as  a  specimen  of  Socinian  can- 
dour ?  If  Mrs,  Barbauld  had  been  possessed  of  can- 
dour equal  to  her  ingenuity,  instead  of  supposing  that 
Calvinists  derive  their  ideas  of  election,  the  atonement, 
future  punishment,  &c,  from  the  tyranny  and  caprice 
of  an  eastern  despot,  she  might  have  admitted, 
whether  they  were  right  or  not,  that  those  principles 
appeared  to  them  to  be  taught  in  the  Bible.f 

If  we  may  estimate  the  candour  of  Sociijians,  from 
the  spirit  discovered  by  Mr.  Robinson  in  the  latter  part 
of  his  life,  the  conclusion  will  not  be  very  favourable  to 
their  system.  At  the  time  when  this  writer  professed 
himself  a  Calvinist,  he  could  acknowledge  those  who 
differed  from  him,  with  respect  to  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
as  "  mistaken  brethren  ;"  at  which  time  his  opponents 
could  not  well  complain  of  his  being  uncandid.  But^ 
when  he  comes  to  change  his  sentiments  on  that  article, 
he  treats  those  from  whom  he  differs  in  a  very  different 
manner,  loading  them  with  every  species  of  abuse. 
Witness  his  treatment  of  Augustine',  whose  conduct, 
previous  to  his  conversion  to  Christianity,  though  la- 
mented with  all  the  tokens  of  penitential  sorrow,  and 
entirely  forsaken  in  the  remaining  period  of  his  lite,  he 

•  Catechist.     Enquiry  6. 

f  A  friend  of  mine  on  looking*  over  Mrs  Bai-bauld's  Pamph- 
let, in  answer  to  Mr.  Wakefield,  remarks  as  follows  :  **  Mrs. 
B.  used  to  call  Socinianism,  The  Frigid  Zone  of'  Christianity ^ 
but  she  is  now  got  far  north  herself.  She  is  amazing-ly  clever; 
her  language  enchanting ;  but  her  caricatura  of  Calvinism 
is  abominable." 


140  ON    CANDOUR  [lET.  8^ 

industriously  represents  to  his  disadvantage;  calling 
him  *'a  pretended  saint,  but  an  illiterate  hypocrite  of 
wicked  dispositions  ;*'  loading  his  memory,  and  even  the 
very  country  where  he  lived,  with  every  opprobrious  ep- 
ithet that  could  be  devised.*     Similar  instances  mi«:ht 

o 

be  added  from  his  Ecclesiastical  Researches,  in  which 
the  characters  of  Calvin  and  Beza  are  treated  in  an 
equally  uncandid  manner.-}- 

T)r,  Priestley  himself,  who  is  said  to  be  the  most 
candid  man  of  his  party,  is  seldom  overloaded  with 
this  virtue  when  he  is  dealing  with  Caivinists.  It 
does  not  discover  a  very  great  degree  of  perfection  in 
this,  or  even  in  common  civility,  to  call  those  who 
consider  his  principles  as  pernicious,  by  the  name  of 
"  bigots,  the  bigots,*'  &c,,  which  he  very  frequently 
does.  Nor  is  it  to  the  credit  of  his  impartiality^  any 
more  than  of  his  candour,  when  weighing  the  moral 
excellence  of  Trinitarians  and  Unitarians  against  each 

•  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  652. 
f  Mr.  Rob  inson,  in  his  notes  on  Claude  observes,  from  Mi% 
Burgh,  that  *'  Whatever  occurs  in  modern  writers  of  History, 
of  a  narrative  nature,  we  find  to  be  an  inference  from  a  system 
previously  assumed,  without  any  view  to  the  seeming-  truth  of 
the  facts  recorded  ;  but  to  the  establishment  of  which  the 
historian  appears,  through  every  species  of  misrepresentation, 
to  have  zealously  directed  his  force — The  subversion  of  free- 
dom was  the  evident  purpose  of  Mr.  Hume,  in  writing  the 
History  of  England.  I  fear  we  may  with  too  much  justice  af- 
firm the  subversion  of  Christianity  to  be  the  object  of  Mr. 
Gibbon,  in  writing  his  History  of  the  decline  and  fall  of  the  Ro- 
man Empire,''  Vol  ii  pp  147,  141.  Perhaps  it  might  with 
equal  propriety  be  added  that  the  subversion  of  what  is  com- 
monly  called  orthodoxy,  and  the  vindication,  or  palliation,  of 
every  thing  which  in  every  age  has  been  called  by  the  name 
of  heresy,  were  the  objects  of  Mr.  Robinson  in  writing  his 
History  of  Baptism,  and  what  has  since  been  published  under 
the  title  of  Ecclesiastical  Researches, 


LET.  8.]  AND    BENEVOLENCE,  lit^ 

Other,  as  in  a  balance,  to  suppose,  **the  former  to 
have  less,  and  the  latter  something  7nor€,  of  a  real 
principle  of  religion  than  they  seem  to  have."*  Thi» 
looks  like  taking  a  portion  out  of  one  scale,  and  cast- 
ing it  into  the  other,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
weight  where  it  was  wanting. 

Dr.  Priestley,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Burn  on  the  Person 
of  Christ,  acquits  him  of  <'  any  thing  base,  disin- 
genuous, immoral  or  wicked  ;"  and  seeing  Mr.  Burn 
had  not  acquitted  him  of  all  such  things  in  return^ 
the  doctor  takes  occasion  to  boast  that  "  his  princi- 
ples, whatever  they  are,  are  more  candid  than  those 
of  Mr.  Burn.^'t  But  if  this  acknowledgment,  can- 
did as  it  may  seem,  be  compared  with  another  passage 
in  the  same  performance,  it  will  appear  to  less  ad- 
vantage. In  letter  the  fifth,  the  doctor  goes  about 
to  account  for  the  motives  of  his  opponents,  and  if 
the  following  language  do  not  insinuate  any  thing 
**  base,  immoral,  or  wicked,''  to  have  influenced  Mr, 
Burn,  it  may  be  difficult  to  decide  what  baseness,  im-» 
morality,  or  wickedness,  is.  "  As  to  Mr.  Burn's  be- 
ing willing  to  have  a  gird  at  me,  as  Falstaif  says,  it 
may  easily  be  accounted  for.  He  has  a  view  to  rise 
in  his  profession,  and  being  a  nvan  of  good  natural 
understanding,  and  good  elocution,  but  having  had 
no  advantage  of  education,  or  family  connexions,  he 
may  think  it  necessary  to  do  something  in  order  to 
make  himself  conspicuous  ;  and  he  might  sujipose 
he  could  not  do  better  than  follow  the  sure  steps 
of  those  who  had  succeeded  in  the  same  chase  before 
him."  What  can  any  person  make  of  these  two  pas- 
sages put  together  ?  It  must  appear,  either  that  Dr. 
Priestley  accused    Mr.  Burn  of  motives,  of  which  m 

•  Discourses  on  V^arious  Subjects,  p.  100, 
f  Fam.  Letters,  Let.  xviii. 


142  ON    CANDOUR  [lET.  ^. 

his  conscience  he  did  not  believe  him  to  be  guilty  ; 
or  that  he  acquitted  him  of  every  thing  base  and 
wicked,  not  because  he  thought  him  so,  but  merely 
with  a  view  to  glory  over  him  by  affecting  to  be  un- 
der the  influence  of  superiour  candour  and  generosity. 

The  manner  in  which  Dr.  Priestley  has  treated 
Mr.  Badcock  in  his  Familiar  Letters  to  the  Inhahitants 
of  Birmingham,  holding  him  up  as  an  immoral  char- 
acter, at  a  time  when,,  unless  some  valuable  end  could 
have  been  answered  by  it,  his  memory  should  have  been 
at  rest,  is  thought  to  be  very  far  from  either  candour  or 
benevolence.  The  doctor  and  Mr.  Badcock  seem  to 
have  been  heretolbre  upon  friendly  terms;  and  not  very 
widely  asunder  as  to  sentiment.  Private  letters  pass 
between  them' ;  and  Mr,  Badcock  always  acknowledges 
Dr.  Priestley  his  superior.  But  about  1783,  Mr,  Bad- 
cock opposes  his  friend  in  the  Monthly  Review,  and  is 
thought  by  many  to  have  the  advantage  of  him.  After 
this,  he  is  said  to  act  scandalously  and  dishonestly.  He 
dies  ;  and  soon  after  his  death.  Dr.  Priestley  avails  him- 
self of  his  former  correspondence  to  expose  his  dishon- 
esty :  and,  as  if  this  were  not  enough,  supplies  from  his 
own  conjectures  what  was  wanting  of  fact,  to  render 
him  completely  odiop.s  to  mankind. 

Dr.  Priestley  may  plead,  that  he  has  held  up  **  the 
example  of  this  unhappy  man  as  a  warning  to  others." 
So,  indeed,  he  speaks  ;  but  thinking  people  will  sup- 
pose, that  if  this  Zimri  had  not  slain  his  master^  his 
bones  might  have  rested  in  peace.  Dr.  Priestley  had 
just  cause  for  exposing  the  author  of  a  piece,  signed 
Theodosius,  in  the  manner  he  has  done  in  those  Letters. 
Justice  to  himself  required  this  :  but  what  necessity  was 
there  for  exposing  Mr.  Badcock  ?  Allowing  that  there 
was  sufficient  evidence  to  support  the  heavy  charge, 
wherein  does  this  affect  the  merits  of  the  cause  ?  Does 


LET.   8.]  AND    BENEVOLENCE.  143 

proving  a  man  a  villain  answer  his  arguments  ?  Is  it 
worthy  of  a  generous  antagonist  to  avail  himself  of  such 
methods  to  prejudice  the  public  mind  ?  Does  it  belong 
to  a  controvertist  to  write  his  opponent's  histor}^,  after 
he  is  dead,  and  to  hold  up  his  character  in  a  disadvan- 
tageous light,   so  as  to  depreciate  his  writings  ? 

Whatever  good  opinion  Socinian  writers  may  enter- 
tain of  the  ability  and  integrity  of  some  few  individuals 
WHO  diifer  from  them,  it  is  pretty  evident  that  they  have 
the  candour  to  consider  the  body  of  their  opponents 
as  either  ignorant  or  insincere.  By  the  poem  which 
Mr.  Badcock  wrote  in  praise  of  Dr.  Priestley,  when 
he  was,  as  the  doctor  informs  us,  his  **  humble  admir- 
er,*' we  may  see  in  what  light  we  are  considered  by 
t>ur  adversaries.  Trinitarians,  among  the  clergy,  are 
there  represented  as  *'  sticking  fast  to  the  church  for 
the  sake  of  a  living  ;'*  and  those  whom  the  writer  calls 
"  orthodox,  popular  preachers,''  (which  I  suppose  may 
principally  refer  to  dissenters,  and  methodistsj  are 
described  as  fools  and  enthusiasts  ;  as  either  "  staring, 
stamping,  and  damning  in  nonsense  ;"  or  else,  whin- 
\w<^  out  the  tidings  of  salvation  ;  telling  their  audi- 
tors that  grace  is  cheap,  and  works  are  all  an  empty 
bubble."  All  this  is  published  by  Dr.  Priestley,  in 
his  Ticenty  Second  Letter  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Bi?- 
mingham ;  and  that  without  any  marks  of  disappro- 
bation. Dr.  Priestley  himself,  though  he  does  not 
descend  to  so  low  and  scurrilous  a  manner  of  writing 
as  the  above,  yet  suggests  the  same  thing,  in  the  Ded- 
ication of  his  Doctrine  of  Philosophical  Necessity, 
He  there  praises  Dr,  Jebb,  for  his  "attachment  to 
the  unadulterated  principles  of  Christianity,  how  un- 
popular soever  the\'^  may  have  become,  through  the 
prejudices  of  the  weak,  or  the  interested  part  of  man- 
kind/' 


t44  ON    HUMIHTT.  [let.  9. 

After  all,  it  is  allowed  that  Dr.  Priestley  is  in  gener- 
al, and  especially  when  he  is  not  dealing  with  a  Calvin- 
ist,  a  fair  and  candid  opponent  :  much  more  so  than 
the  Monthly  Reviewers:  who,  with  the  late  Mr.  Bad- 
tock,  seem  to  rank  among  his  '*  humble  admirers."* 
Candid  and  open,  however,  as  Dr.  Priestley  in  general 
is,  the  above  are  certainly  no  very  trifling  exceptions  : 
and,  considering  him  as  excelling  most  of  his  party  in 
this  virtue,  they  are  sufficient  to  prove  the  point  for 
which  they  are  alleged  ;  namely,  that  when  Socinians 
profess  to  be  more  candid  than  their  opponents,  their 
profession  includes  more  than  their  conduct  will  justify. 

1  am,  he. 


LETTER  IX. 

THE    SYSTEMS    COMPARED,     AS     TO     THFIR   TENDENCY 
TO    PROMOTE    HUMILITY. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

YOU  recollect  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  in  which, 
speaking  of  gospel  times,  he  predicts,  thnt  the  loftiness 
of  man  shall  he  bowed  down,  and  (he  haughtiness  of  men 
shall  he  made  loiv,  and  the  Lord  alone  shall  he  exalted  in 
that  day  ;  as  if  it  were  one  peculiar  characteristic  of  the 
true  gospel  to  lay  low  the   pride  of  man.     The   whole 

*  About  eig-bt  or  nine  years  ago,  the  Monthly  Review  was 
at  open  war  with  Dr.  Priestley  ;  and  the  doctor,  like  an  incens- 
ed monarch,  summoned  all  his  mighty  resources  to  expose  its 
weakness  and  to  degrade  it  in  the  eye  of  the  public.  The  con- 
ductors of  the  Review,  at  length  finding,  it  seems,  that  thpir 
country  vjas  nourished  by  the  King^s  country ^  desired  peace.  They 
have  ever  since  very  punctually  paid  him  tribute  ;  and  ihe 
conqueror  seems  very  well  contented,  on  this  condition,  to 
grant  them  his  favour  and  protection. 


LET.    9.]  ON    HUMILITY.  145 

tenor  of  the  New  Testament  enforces  the  same  idea. 
Ye  see  your  calling,  brethren,  how  that  not  many  tcise 
men  after  thejiesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble, 
are  called.  But  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish  things  of 
the  world,  to  confound  the  wise  ;  and  God  hath  chosen 
the  weak  things  of  the  world,  to  confound  the  things 
which  are  mighty  ;  and  base  things  of  the  world,  and 
things  which  are  despised,  hath  God  chosen,  yea,  and 
things  which  are  not,  to  bring  to  nought  things  that  are  : 
that  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his  presence — Jesus  said,  I 
thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent, 
and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes — Where  is  boasting  ? 
It  is  excluded.  By  what  law  ?  Of  works  ?  Say,  but 
by  the  law  of  faith,*  It  may  be  concluded  with  cer- 
tainty from  these  passages,  and  various  others  of  the 
same  import,  that  tiie  system  which  has  tlie  greatest 
tendency  to  promote  this  virtue,  approaches  nearest  to 
the  true  gospel  of  Christ. 

Pride,  the  oppobite  of  humility,  may  be  distinguish- 
ed, by  its  objects,  into  natural  aud  spiritual.  BoJi  con- 
sist in  a  too  high  esteem  of  ourselves  :  the  one,  on  ac- 
count of  those  accomplishments  which  are  merely  nat- 
ural, or  which  pertain  to  us  as  men  ;  the  other  on  ac- 
count of  those  which  are  spiritual,  or  which  pertain  to 
us  as  good  men.  With  respect  to  the  first,  it  is  not 
very  difficult  to  know  who  they  are  that  ascribe  most 
to  their  own  understanding  ;  that  profess  to  believe  in 
nothing  but  what  they  can  comprehend  ;  that  arrogate 
to  themselves  the  name  of  ratio). al  christians  :  that  af- 
fect to  *'  pity  all  those  who  maintain  the  doctrine  of  two 
natures  in  Christ,  as  being  under  a  debilitv  of  miiid  in 
tliis  respect,  however  sensible  and  rational  in  others  ;"f 
N 
*  1  Cop.  i.  26—29.  Matt,  xi,  25.  Rom.  iii.  i^r. 
I  Mr.  Lindsey's  Catechist,  Enquiry  6. 


14§  ON    HUMILITY.  [lET.    Q. 

that  pour  compliments  extravagantly  upon  one  anoth- 
er ;*  that  speak  of  their  own  party  as  the  wise  and 
learned,  and  of  their  opponents  as  the  ignorant  and  illit- 
erate who  are  carried  away  by  vulgar  prejudices  ;*|*  that 
tax  the  sacred  writers  with  "  reasoning  inconclu- 
sively/' and  writing  "  lame  accounts;''  and  that  repre- 
sent themselves  as  men  of  far  greater  compass  of  mind 
than  they,  or  than  even  Jesus  Christ  himself  ! 

The  hist  of  these  particulars  may  excite  surprise. 
Charity,  that  hopeth  all  things,  will  be  ready  to  sug- 
gest, Surely,  no  man,  that  calls  himbclf  a  christian,  will 
dare  to  speak  so  arrogantly.  1  acknowledge  I  should 
have  thought  so,  if  1  had  not  read  in  Dr.  Priestley's 
Doctrine  of  Philosophical  Necessity .^  as  follows  :  *'  Not 
that  I  think  that  the  sacred  writers  were  Necessarians^ 
for  they  vieve  not  philosophers  ;  not  even  our  Saviour 
himself,  as  far  as  appears  : — But  their  habitual  devotion 
naturally  led  them  to  refer  all  things  to  God,  without 
reflecting  on  the  rigorous  meaning  of  their  language  ; 
and  very  probably,  had  they  been  interrogated  on  the 
subject,  they  would  have  appeared  not  to  be  apprised  of 
the  Necessarian  scheme,  and  would  have  answered  i[i  a 
manner  unfavourable  to  it." J  The  sacred  writers,  it 
seems,  were  well-meaning  persons  ;  but  at  the  same 
time  so  ignorant,  as  not  to  know  the  meaning  of  their 
own  language  ;  nay,  so  ignorant,  that,  had  it  been  ex- 
plained to  them,  they  would  have  been  incapable  of 
taking  it  in  !  Nor  is  this  suggested  of  the  sacred  writers 
only  ;  but,  as  it  should  seem,  of  Jesus  Christ  himself. 
A  very  fit  person  Jesus  Christ  must  be,  indeed,  to  be 
addressed  as  A:woM*iw^  all  things;    as  a  revealer  of  the 

*  Mr.  Toulmin's  Serm.  on  the  Death  of  Mr.  Robinson,  p.  47,  56, 

•J-  Mr.  Belsham's  Sermon  on  the  Importance  of  Truth,  p.  4,  32. 

t  Page  133. 


LET.    9.]  ON    HUMILITY.  147 

rnrnd  of  God  to  men  ;  as  the  wisdom  of  God  ,*  as  he  in 
whom  it  pleased  the  Father  that  all  fulness  should  dwell ; 
by  whom  the  judges  of  the  earth  are  exhorted  to  be  in- 
structed  ;  and  who  '^hM  judge  the  world  at  the  last  day  : 
when,  in  fact,  he  was  so  ignorant  as  not  to  consider  the 
raeaniTig  of  his  own  language  ;  or,  if  he  had  been  inter- 
rogated upon  it,  would  not  have  been  apprised  of  the 
extent  of  the  scheme  which  his  words  naturally  led  to, 
but  would  probably  have  answered  in  a  manner  unfa- 
vonraV>le  to  it  !  Is  this  the  language  of  one  that  is  little 
in  his  own  eyes  ? 

But  there  is  such  a  thing  as  spiritual  pride,  or  a  too 
high  esteem  of  ourselves  on  account  of  spiritual  accom- 
plishments ;  and  this,  together  with  a  spirit  of  bigotry^ 
Dr.  Priestley  imputes  to  Trinitarians.  "Upon  the 
whole,  (says  he)  considering  the  great  mixture  of  spir- 
itual pride  and  bigotry  in  some  of  the  most  zealous 
Trinitarians,  I  think  the  moral  character  of  Unitarians  in 
general,  allowing  that  there  is  in  them  a  greater  appar- 
ent conformity  to  the  world  than  is  observable  in  oth- 
ers, approaches  more  nearly  to  the  proper  temper  of 
Christianity.  It  is  more  cheerful,  more  benevolent,  and 
more  candid.  The  former  have  probably  less,  and  the 
latter,  I  hope,  somewhat  more,  of  a  real  principle  of  re- 
ligion, than  they  seem  to  have."*  To  this  it  is 
replied. 

First:  If  Trinitarians  be  proud  at  all,  it  seems  it 
must  be  of  their  spirituality  ;  for,  as  to  rationality,  they 
have  none,  their  opponents  having  by  a  kind  of  exclusive 
charter,  monopolized  that  article.  It  is  their  misfor- 
tune, it  seems,  when  investigating  the  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  to  be  under  a  "debility  of  mind,"  or 
a  kind  of  periodical  insanity. 

•  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  100 


148  ON    HUMILITY.  [lET.    9. 

Secondly  :  Admitting  that  a  greater  degree  of  spirit- 
ual pride  exists  among  Trinitarians,  than  among  their 
opponents  ;  if  we  were,  for  once  to  follow  Dr.  Priest- 
ley's example,  it  might  he  accounted  for  without  any 
reflection  upon  their  principles.  Pride  is  a  sin  that 
easily  besets  human  nature,  though  nothing  is  more  op- 
posite to  the  spirit  that  becomes  us  ;  and,  whatever  it 
is  in  which  a  body  of  men  excel,  they  are  under  a  pe- 
culiar temptation  to  be  proud  of  that  rather  than  of 
other  things.  The  English  people  have  been  often 
charged  by  their  neighbours  with  pride,  on  account  of 
their  civil  constitution  ;  and,  I  supj)ose,  it  has  not  been 
without  reason.  They  have  conceived  themselves  to 
exLid  other  nations  in  that  particular  ;  have  been  apt  to 
\alae  themselves  upon  it;  and  to  undervalue  their 
neighbours  more  than  they  ought.  This  has  been 
their  fault:  bat  it  does  not  prove  that  their  civil  consti- 
tution has  not,  after  all,  its  excellencies.  Nay,  perhaps 
the  reason  why  some  of  their  neighbours  have  not  been 
so  proud  in  this  particular  as  they,  is,  they  have  not 
had  that  to  be  proud  of.  Christians  in  general  are 
more  likely  to  be  the  subjects  of  spiritual  pride  than 
avowed  iiitidels  ;  for,  the  pride  of  the  latter,  though  it 
may  iise  to  the  highest  pitch  imaginable,  will  not  be 
m  their  spirituality.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Socini- 
ans.  For,  while  **  a  great  number  of  them  are  oidy 
men  of  good  sense,  aid  without  much  practical  relig- 
ion,'* as  \y\\  Priestley  acknowledges  they  are,*  their 
pride  will  not  be  in  their  spirituality,  but  in  their  sup- 
posed  rationality. 

Thirdly  :  Let  it  be  considered  whether  our  doctrinal 
sentiments  do  not  bear  a  nearer  affinity  to  those  princi- 
ples which  in  scripture  are  constantly  urged  as  motives 

♦  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  100. 


LET,   9.]  ON    HUMILITY.  14^ 

to  humility,  than  those  of  our  opponents. — The  doc- 
trines inculcated  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  ordeV  to 
lay  men  low  in  the  dust  before  God,  were  those  of  hu- 
man depravity,  and  salvation  by  free  and  sovereign 
grace  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  language  held  out 
by  our  Lord  was,  that  he  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
tvhich  tvas  lost.  The  general  strain  of  his  preaching 
tended  to  inform  mankind,  not  only  that  he  came  to 
save  lost  sinners  ;  but  that  no  man  under  any  other 
character  could  partake  of  the  blessings  of  salvation, 
/  cam^,  saith  he,  wo^  to  call  the  righteovs,  but  sinners 
to  repentance.  The  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but 
they  that  are  sick.  To  the  same  purpose  the  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  declared  to  the  Ephesians,  You'  hath  he 
quickened  ivho  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  :  where^ 
in,  in  time  past,  ye  walked  according  to  the  course  of 
this  world,  according  to  the  prince  0/ the  power  of  the 
air,  the  spirit  that  now  tvorketh  in  the  children  of  diso* 
bedience.  Nor  did  he  speak  tliis  of  Gentiles,  or  of  prof- 
ligates only  ;  but  though  himself  a  Jew,  and  educated 
a  Pharisee,  he  added.  Among  whom  also  we  all  had  our 
conversation  in  times  past  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh,  ful- 
filling the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind  ;  and 
were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others* 
To  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  depravity  of  human 
nature,  he  very  properly  and  joyfully  proceeds  to  op- 
pose that  of  God's  rich  mercy.  But  God  who  is  rick 
in  mercy,  for  the  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  21s,  even 
ivhen  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us  together 
with  Christ,  The  humbling  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
undeserved  favour  was  so  natural  an  inference  from 
these  premises,  that  the  apostle  could  not  forbear  . 
throwing  in  such  a  reflection,  though  it  were  in  a  pa- 
renthesis ;  By  grace  ye  are  saved  I  Nor  did  he  leave  it 
N  2 


IS9  ON    HUMILITY.  [lET.    9* 

there,  but  presently  after  drew  the  same  conclusion 
more  fully  :  For  by  grace  ye  are  saved  through  faith  ; 
and  that  not  of  yourselves  ;  it  is  the  gift  of  God,  Not 
of  tvorksy  lest  any  man  should  boast,*  To  the  same 
purport  he  taught  in  his  other  epistles  :  Who  hath  sav* 
ed  us,  and  called  us  with  an  holy  calling,  not  accord* 
ing  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and 
grace,  which  ivas  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  before  the 
ivorld  began — Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we 
have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us — Of 
him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us 
wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctifcation,  and  re* 
demption  :  that  according  as  it  is  ivritten.  He  that  glo" 
rieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord,'\ 

These,  we  see,  were  the  sentiments  by  which  Christ 
and  his  apostles  taught  men  humility,  and  cut  off 
boasting.  But  as  though  it  were  designed  in  perfect 
opposition  to  the  apostolic  doctrine,  Socinian  writers 
are  constantly  exclaiming  against  the  Calvinistic 
system,  because  it  maintains  the  insufficiency  of  a 
good  moral  life  to  recommend  us  to  the  favour  of 
God.  *<  Repentance  and  a  good  life,  (says  Dr. 
Priestley)  are  of  themselves  sufficient  to  recommend 
us  to  the  divine  favour.*'^ — "When,  (says  Mrs.  Bar- 
bauld)  will  christians  permit  themselves  to  believe, 
that  the  same  conduct  which  gains  them  the  approba- 
tion of  good  men  here,  will  secure  the  favour  of 
Heaven  hereafter  } — When  a  man,  like  Dr.  Price,  is 
about  to  resign  his  soul  into  the  hands  of  his  Maker, 
he  ought  to  do  it  not  only  with  a  reliance  on  his 
mercy,  but  his  justice — It  does  not  become  him  to 
pay  the  blasphemous  homage  of  deprecating  the  wrath 

•   Ephes.  ii.  1—9. 
t  2  Tim.  i.  9     Titus  iii.  5.     1  Cor.  i.  30,  31. 
#  Hist,  of  Corrup.  of  Christianity,  Vol,  1.  p.  155. 


LET.    9.]  ON    HUMILITY.  151 

of  God,  when  he  ought  to  throw  himself  into  the 
arms  of  his  love."* — *«  Other  foundation  than  this  can 
no  man  lay  :  (says  Dr.  Harwood)  All  hopes  founded 
upon  any  thing  else  than  a  good  moral  life,  are  merely 
imaginary. "f  So  they  icrap  it  vp.  If  a  set  of  wri- 
ters united  together,  and  studied  to  form  an  hypoth- 
esis in  perfect  contradiction  to  the  holy  scriptures, 
and  the  declared  humbling  tendency  of  the  gospel, 
they  could  not  have  hit  upon  a  point  more  directly 
to  their  purpose.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  gospel  says, 
It  is  NOT  q/*  works f  lest  any  man  should  boast  :  But 
Socinian  writers  maintain,  that  it  is  of  works,  and  of 
them  only  ;  that  in  this,  and  in  no  other  way,  is 
the  divine  favour  to  be  obtained.  We  might  ask. 
Where  is  boasting  then  9  Is  it  excluded  P  Nay  ;  Is 
it  not  admitted  and  cherished  ? 

Christ  and  his  apostles  inculcated  humility,  by 
teaching  the  primitive  christians  that  virtue  itself  was 
not  of  themselves,  but  the  gift  of  God.  They  not 
only  expressly  declared  this  with  respect  to  faith,  but 
the  same,  in  effect,  of  every  particular  included  in 
the  general  notion  of  true  godliness.  As  the  branch 
cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself  ^  said  Christ,  except  it  abide 
in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me  : 
for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing — We  are  his  work'- 
manship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works, 
which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk 
in  them — He  worketh  in  us  both  to  ivill  and  to  do,  of 
his  good  pleasure.^  The  manifest  design  of  these 
important  sayings,  was,  to  humble  the  primitive 
christians,  and  to  make  them  feel  their  entire  depen- 
dence upon  God  for  virtue,  even  for  every  good  thought* 

*  Answer  to  Mr.  Wakefield.  |  Sermons,  p.  193. 

i  John  XV.  4,  5.     Eph.  ii.  ID.     Phil.  ii.  13. 


f52  ON    HUMILITY.  [lET.    9. 

Who  maketh  thee  to  differ,  said  the  apostle,  and  what 
hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  ?  Now  if  thou 
didst  receive  it,  why  dost  thou  glory  as  if  thou  hadst 
not  received  it  f*  The  Calvinistic  system,  it  is  well 
known,  includes  the  same  things  :  but  where  is  the 
place  for  them,  or  where  do  they  appear,  in  the  sys- 
tem of  our  opponents  ?  Dr.  Priestley,  in  professed 
opposition  to  Calvinism,  maintains,  that  "  it  depends 
entirely  upon  a  man's  self  whether  he  be  virtuous  or 
vicious,  happy  or  miserable  ;"f  That  is  to  say,  it  is 
a  man's  self  that  maketh  him  to  differ  from  another; 
and  he  has  that  (namely,  virtue)  which  he  did  not 
receive,  and  in  which  therefore  he  may  glory. J 

Dr.  Priestley  replies  to  this  kind  of  reasoning, 
*■*  When  we  consider  ourselves  as  the  workmanship  of 

*  1  Cor.  iv.  7.  t  ^^^-  ^^  Necessity,  p.  153. 

t  It  is  true.  Dr.  Priestley  himself  sometimes  allows  that 
virtue  is  not  our  oivny  and  does  not  arise  from  laithin  ourselves  ; 
calling  that  mere  heathen  stoicism,  which  maintains  the  con- 
trary :  and  tells  us,  that  **  those  persons,  who,  fi'om  a  princi- 
ple of  religion,  ascribe  more  to  God,  and  less  to  man,  are 
persons  of  the  greatest  elevation  in  piety."  On  Nece^sity^  pp^ 
107,  108.  Yet  in  the  same  performance  he  represents  it  as 
a  part  of  the  Necessarian  scheme,  by  which  it  is  opposed  to 
Calvinism,  that  **  it  depends  entirely  upon  a  man's  sef, 
whether  he  be  virtuous  or  vicious."  P.  153.  If  Dr.  Priestley 
mean  no  more  by  these  expressions,  thart  that  our  conduct  in 
life,  whether  virtuous  or  vicious,  depends  upon  our  choice, 
the  Calvinistic  scheme,  as  well  as  his  own,  allows  of  it.  But 
if  he  mean  that  a  virtuous  choice  originates  in  ourselves,  and 
that  we  are  the  proper  cause  of  it,  this  can  agree  to  nothing 
b\it  the  Arminian  notion  of  a  self-determining  power  in  the 
will,  and  that  in  fact,  as  he  himself  elsewhere  observes,  is 
**  mere  heathen  stoicism,,  which  allows  men  to  pray  for  exter- 
nal things,  but  admonishes  them,  that,  as  for  virtue,  ii  is  our 
own,  and  must  arise  froTn  vjithin  ourselves,  if  we  have  it  at 
all."     P.  69. 


LET.    9.]  ON    HUMILITY,  I5d 

God ;  that  all  our  powers,  of  body  and  of  mind,  are 
derived  from  him  ;  that  he  is  the  giver  of  every  good 
and  of  every  perfect  gift,  and  that  without  him  we  can 
do  and  enjoy  nothing,  how  can  we  conceive  ourselves 
to  be  in  a  state  of  greater  dependence,  or  obligation  ; 
that  is,  what  greater  reason  or  foundation  can  there 
possibly  be  for  the  exercise  of  humility?  if  I  believe 
that  I  have  a  power  to  do  the  duty  that  God  requires 
of  me;  yet  as  I  also  believe  that  that  power  is  his  gift* 
1  must  still  say,  What  have  I  that  I  have  not  received* 
and  how  then  can  I  glory  as  if  1  had  not  received  it  ?"* 
It  is  true,  Dr.  Priestley,  and  for  ought  1  know,  all 
other  writers,  except  atheists,  acknowledge  themselves 
indebted  to  God  for  the  powers  by  which  virtue  is 
attained,  and  perhaps  for  the  means  of  attaiinng  it  ; 
but  this  is  not  acknowledging  that  we  are  indebted  to 
him  for  virtue  itself.  Powers  and  opportunities  are 
mere  natural  blessings  ;  they  have  no  virtue  in  them, 
but  are  a  kind  of  talent  capable  of  being  improved,  or 
not  improved.  Virtue  consists,  not  in  the  possession 
of  natural  powers,  any  more  than  in  health,  or  learn- 
ing, or  riches  ;  but  in  the  use  that  is  made  of  them. 
God  does  not,  therefore,  upon  this  principle,  give  us 
virtue.  Dr.  Priestley  contends,  that  as  we  are  **  God's 
workmanship,  and  derive  all  our  powers  of  body  and 
mind  from  him,  we  cannot  conceive  of  ourselves  as 
being  in  a  state  of  greater  dependence  upon  him." 
The  apostle  Paul,  however,  teaches  the  necessity  of 
being  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works.  Ac- 
cording to  Paul,  we  must  become  his  workmanship  by 
a  new  creation,  in  order  to  the  performance  of  good 
works  :  but  according  to  'Y^r,  Priestley,  the  first 
creation   is  sufficient.     Now,  if  so,  the  difference  be- 

•  On  Differ,  of  Opin.  §  iii. 


MA  ON    HUMILITY.  [lET.    9. 

tween  one  man  and  another  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to 
God  :  for  it  is  supposed,  that  God  has  given  all  men 
the  powers  of  attaining  virtue,  and  that  the  difference 
between  the  virtuous  man  and  his  neighbour  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  himself,  in  making  a  good  use  of  the 
powers  and  opportunities  with  which  he  was  invested. 
Upon  this  sj^stem,  therefore,  we  may  justly  answer 
the  question.  What  hast  thou  ivhich  thou  hast  not  re^ 
ceived?  I  have  virtue,  and  the  promise  of  eternal  life 
as  its  reward,  and  consequently  have  whereof  to  glory. 
In  short,  the  whole  of  Dr.  Priestley's  concessions 
amount  to  nothing  more  than  the  heathen  stoicism, 
which  he  elsewhere  condemns.  Those  ancient  phi- 
losophers could  not  deny,  that  all  their  povvers  were 
originally  derived  from  above  ;  yet  they  maintained 
that  as  for  virtue,  \t\sourown,  and  must  arise  yrom 
within  ourselves,  if  we  have  it   at  all." 

I  do  not  deny  that  all  men  have  natural  powers, 
together  with  means  and  opportunities  of  doing  good  ; 
which,  if  they  were  but  completely  well-disposed,  are 
equal  to  the  performance  of  their  whole  duty.  God 
requires  no  more  of  us,  than  to  love  and  serve  him  with 
ALL  our  strength.  These  powers  and  opportunities 
render  them  accountable  beings,  and  will  leave  them 
without  excuse  at  the  last  day.  But  if  they  are  not 
rightly  disposed,  all  their  natural  powers  will  be 
abused  ;  and  the  question  is.  To  whom  are  we  in- 
debted for  a  change  of  disposition  ?  If  to  God,  we 
have  reason  to  lie  in  the  dust,  and  acknowledge  it  was 
he  that  quickened  us,  when  ive  were  dead  iji  sins  :  if 
to  ourselves,  the  doctrine  of  the  stoics  will  be  es- 
tablished, and   we  shall   have  whereof  to  glory. 

1  am,  &c. 


LET.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  155 

/ 

LETTER  X. 

ON   CHARITY  :    IN   WHICH   IS  CONSIDERED  THE  CHARGE 
OF    BIGOTRY. 

Christian  Brethren, 

THE  main  reason  why  we  are  accused  of  spiritual 
pride,  bigotry,  uncharitableiiess,  and  the  like,  i;?,  the 
importance  which  we  ascribe  to  some  of  our  sentiments. 
'N  iewing  them  as  essential  to  Christianity,  we  cannot, 
})roperly  speaking,  acknowledge  those  who  reject  them 
as  christians.  It  is  this  which  provokes  the  resentment 
of  our  opponents,  and  induces  them  to  load  us  with  op- 
probrious ej>ithets.  We  have  already  touched  upon 
this  topic,  in  the  Letter  on  Candour,  but  will  now  con- 
sider it  more  particularly. 

It  is  allowed,  that  we  ought  not  to  judge  of  whole 
bodies  of  men  by  the  denomination  under  which  they 
pass  ;  because  names  do  not  always  describe  the  real 
principles  they  embrace.  It  is  possible  that  a  person 
who  attends  upon  a  very  unsound  ministry,  may  not 
understand  or  adopt  so  much  of  the  system  which  he 
hears  inculcated,  as  that  his  disposition  shall  be  formed, 
or  his  conduct  regulated,  by  it.  I  have  heard,  from 
persons  who  have  been  much  conversant  with  Socinia!>s, 
that  though,  in  general,  they  are  of  a  loose,  dissipated 
turn  of  mind,  assembling  in  the  gay  circles  of  pleasure, 
and  following  the  customs  and  manners  of  the  world  ; 
yet  that  there  are  some  among  them  who  are  more  seri- 
ous ;  and  that  these,  if  not  in  iheir  conversation,  yet  in 
their  solemn  addresses  to  the  Almighty,  incline  to  the 
doctrines  of  Calvinism.  This  perfectly  accords  with 
Mrs.  Barbauld's  representation  of  the  matter,  as  noticed 
towards  the  close  of  the  Sixth  Letter.     Tljese  people 


156  ON    CHARITY.  [lET.    10. 

are  not,  properly  speaking,  Socinians  ;  and,  therefore, 
ought  to  be  left  quite  out  of  the  question.  For  the 
question  is.  Whether,  as  believing  in  the  Deity  and 
atonement  of  Christ,  with  other  correspondent  doctrines, 
we  be  required  by  the  charity  inculcated  in  the  gospel, 
to  acknowledge,  as  fellow-christians,  those  who  thor- 
oughly and  avovTcdly  reject  them  ? 

It  is  no  part  of  the  business  of  this  Letter,  to  prove 
that  these  doctrines  are  true  ;  this,  at  present,  I  have  a 
right  to  take  for  granted.  The  fair  state  of  the  objec- 
tion, if  delivered  by  a  Socinian,  would  be  to  this  effect  : 
*  Though  your  sentiments  should  be  right,  yet,  by  re- 
fusing to  acknowledge  others  who  differ  from  you,  as 
fellow-christians,  you  over-rate  their  importance,  and  so 
violate  the  charity  recommended  by  the  gospel.'  To 
the  objection  as  thus  stated,  I  shall  endeavour  to  reply. 

Charity,  it  is  allowed,  will  induce  us  to  put  the  most 
favourable  construction  upon  things,  and  to  entertain 
the  most  favourable  opinion  of  persons,  that  truth  will 
admit.  It  is  far  from  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  to  in- 
dulge a  censorious  temper,  or  to  take  pleasure  in  draw- 
ing unfavourable  conclusions  against  any  person  what- 
ever ;  but  the  tenderest  disposition  towards  mankind 
cannot  convert  truth  into  falsehood,  or  falsehood  into 
truth.  Unless,  therefore,  we  reject  the  Bible,  and  tlie 
belief  of  ani/  thing  as  necessary  to  salvation  ;  though 
we  should  stretch  our  good  opinion  of  men  to  the  great- 
est lengths,  yet  we  must  stop  somewhere.  Charity  it- 
self does  not  so  believe  all  things,  as  to  disregard  truth 
and  evidence.  We  are  sometimes  reminded  of  our 
Lo r d ' s  CO m  m a n d ,  Judge  not ,  Mst  ye  he  ju dgecL  This 
language  is  doubtless  designed  to  rej>rove  a  censorious 
disposition,  which  leads  people  to  pass  wwjw^^  judgment, 
or  to  discern  a  mote  in  a  brother  s  ej/e,  tchile  they  are 
blind  to  a  beam  in  their  own  .*    but  it  cannot  be  intend- 


LET.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  tSf 

ed  to  forbid  a// judgment  whatever,  even  upon  charac- 
ters ;  for  this  would  be  contrary  to  what  our  Lord 
teaches  in  the  same  discourse,  warning  his  disciples  to 
beware  of  false  prophets,  tvko  would  com€  to  them  in 
sheep^s  clothing  :  adding.  Ye  shall  know  them  hy  their 
fruits,*  Few  pretend,  that  we  ought  to  think  favoura- 
bly o{ profligate  characters ;  or  that  it  is  any  breach  of 
chanty  to  think  unfavourably  concerning  them.  But, 
if  the  words  of  our  Lord  be  understood  as  forbidding  all 
judgment  ivhatever  upon  characters,  it  must  be  wrong 
to  pass  aijy  judgment  upon  them.  ^^ay,  it  must  be 
wrong  for  a  minister  to  declare  to  a  drunkard,  a  thief, 
or  an  adulterer,  that,  if  h«  die  in  his  present  condition, 
he  must  perish  ;  because  this  is  judging  the  party  not 
to  be  in  a  state  of  salvation. 

All  the  use  that  is  commonly  made  of  our  LordV 
words,  is  in  favour  of  sentiments,  not  of  actions  :  but 
the  scriptures  make  no  such  distinction.  Men  are 
there  represented  as  being  under  the  wrath  of  God,  who 
hfive  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God  ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  intimated  in  our  Lord's 
€xpressions,  as  if  the  judgment,  which  he  forbade  his 
disciples  to  pass,  were  to  be  confined  to  matters  of  sen- 
timent. The  judgment,  which  is  there  reproved,  is 
partial  or  trrow^  judgment,  whether  it  be  on  account  of 
sentiment,  or  of  practice.  Even  those  who  plead 
against  judging  persons  on  account  of  sentiment  (many 
of  them  at  least)  allow  themselves  to  think  unfavoura- 
bly of  avowed  infidels,  who  have  heard  the  gospel,  hut 
continue  to  reject  it.  They  themselves,  therefore,  do 
judge  unfavourably  of  men  on  account  of  their  senti- 
ments ;  and  must  do  so,  unless  they  will  reject  the  bible, 
which  declares  unbelievers  to  be  under  condem nation. 
O 
•  Matt.'vli.  1,  2,  3,  15,  76. 


158  ON    CHARITY*  [lET.    10. 

Dr.  Priestley,  however,  seems  to  extend  bis  favonra* 
ble  opinion  to  idolaters  and  intidels,  without  distinction. 
*'  All  differences  in  modes  of  worship,  (he  says)  may  be 
only  the  different  methods  by  which  different  men  (who 
are  equally  the  offspring  of  God  J  are  endeavouring  to 
honour  and  obey  their  common  Parent."*  He  also  in- 
veighs a*>ainst  a  supposition,  that  the  mere  holding  of 
any  opinions  (so  it  seems  the  great  articles  of  our  faith 
must  be  called)  should  exclude  men  from  the  favour  of 
God,  It  is  true,  what  he  says  is  guarded  so  much,  as 
to  give  the  argument  he  engages  to  support  a  very  plau- 
sible appearance  ;  but  withal  so  ill  directed,  as  not  in 
the  least  to  affect  that  of  his  opponents.  His  words  are 
these  :  "  Let  those  who  maintain  that  the  mere  holding 
of  any  opinions  (without  regard  to  the  motives  and  state 
of  mind  through  which  men  may  have  been  led  to  form 
them)  will  necessarily  exclude  them  from  the  favour  of 
God,  be  particularly  careful  with  respect  to  the  prem- 
ises from  which  they  draw  so  alarming  a  conclusion.'* 
The  counsel  contained  in  these  words  is  undoubtedly 
very  good.  Those  premises  ought  to  be  well  founded 
from  whence  such  a  conclusion  is  drawn.  1  do  not, 
indeed,  suppose,  that  any  ground  for  such  a  conclusion 
exists  :  and  who  they  are  that  draw  it  I  cannot  tell. 
The  mere  holding  of  an  opinion,  considered  abstracted- 
ly from  the  motiv^e,  or  state  of  mind  of  him  that  holds  it, 
must  be  simply  an  exercise  of  intellect  ;  and,  I  am  in-  . 
dined  to  think,  has  in  it  neither  good  nor  evil.  But 
the  question  is.  Whether  there  be  not  truths,  which, 
from  the  nature  of  them,  cannot  be  rejected  without  an 
evii  bias  of  heart  ?  And,  therefore,  where  we  see  those 
truths  rejected.  Whether  we  have  not  authority  to  con- 
clude that  such  rejection  must  have  arisen  from  an  evil 
bias  ? 

♦  On  Differ,  of  Opin.  §  ii. 


LET.     10.]  ON    CHARITY.  159 

If  a  man  say,  There  is  no  God,  the  scripture  teaches 
us  to  consider  it,  rather  as  the  language  of  his  hearty 
than  simply  of  his  judgment  ;  and  makes  no  scruple 
of  calling  him  a  fool ;  which  according  to  the  scrip- 
tural idea  of  the  term,  is  equal  to  calling  him  a  wicked 
man.  And  let  it  be  seriously  considered,  upon  what 
other  principle  our  Lord  could  send  forth  his^  disci- 
ples to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  and  add 
as  he  did,  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  he 
saved ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned. 
is  it  not  here  plainly  supposed  that  the  gospel  was 
accoiupanied  with  such  evidence,  that  no  intelligent 
creature  could  reject  it,  but  from  an  evil  bias  of 
heart,  such  as  would  justly  expose  him  to  damnation  ? 
If  it  had  been  possible  for  an  intelligent  creature, 
after  hearing  the  gospel,  to  think  Jesus  an  impostor, 
and  his  doctrine  a  lie,  without  any  evil  motive,  or 
corrupt  state  of  mind  ;  I  desire  to  know  how  the 
Lord  of  glory  is  to  be  acquitted  of  something  worse 
than   bigotry  in  making  such  a  declaration. 

B'^cause  the  mere  holding  of  an  opinion,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  motive  or  state  of  mind  in  him  that  holds 
it,  is  neither  good  nor  evil,  it  does  not  follow,  that 
*' all  differences  in  modes  of  worship  may  be  only 
the  different  methods  by  which  different  men  are 
endeavouring  to  honour  and  obey  their  common 
parent."  The  latter  includes  more  than  the  former. 
The  performance  of  worship  contains  more  than  the 
mere  holding  of  an  opinion  :  for  it  includes  an  exer- 
cise of  the  heart.  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  did  not 
proceed  on  any  such  principle,  when  they  went  forth 
preaching  the  gospel  ;  as  J  hope  hath  been  sufficiently 
proved  in  the  Letter  on  Candour,  The  principles 
on  which  they  proceeded  were.  An  assurance  that  they 
were  of  God,  and  that  the  whola  world  were  lying  in 


l60  ON    CHARITY.  [lET.    10» 

tmckedness — That  he  who  icas  of  God  would  hear 
their  wdrds  ;  and  he  that  was  not  of  God  would  not 
hear  them — That  he  who  believed  their  testimoni/y  set 
to  his  seal  that  God  was  true ;  and  he  that  believed 
it  noty  made  God  a  liar. 

If  we  coiisfder  a  belief  of  the  gospel,  in  those  who 
hear  it,  as  es'sential  to  salvation,  we  shall  be  called 
bigots  :  but,  if  this  be  bigotry,  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  apostles  were  bigots  ;  and  the  same  outcry  might 
have  been  raised  against  them,  by  both  Jews  and 
Greek?,  as  is  now  raised  against  us.  Jesus  Christ 
himself  said  to  the  Jews,  If  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he^ 
ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  :  and  his  apostles  went  forth 
with  the  same  language.  They  wrote  and  preached 
that  men  might  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ ; 
and  thnty  believing,  they  might  have  life  through  his 
name.  Those  who  embraced  their  testimony,  they 
treated  as  in  a  state  of  salvation  ;  and  those  who  re- 
jected it  were  told,  that  they  had  judged  themselves 
ten  worthy  of  everlasting  life.  In  short,  they  acted 
as  men  fully  convinced  of  the  truth  of  what  their 
Lord  had  declared  in  their  commission ;  He  that 
helieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that 
believeth  not,  shall  be  damned. 

To  all  this  an  unbelieving  Jew  might  have  object- 
'  e?d,  in  that  day,  with  quite  as  good  a  grace  as  So- 
cinians  object  in  this  :  '  These  men  think,  that  our 
salvation  depends  upon  receiving  their  opinions  1 
Have  not  we  been  the  people  of  God,  and  in  a  state 
of  salvation,  time  out  of  mind,  without  believing  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Son  of  God  ?  Our  fathers 
believed  only  in  general,  that  there  was  a  Messiah 
to  come  ;  and  were,  no  doubt,  saved  in  that  faith. 
We  also  believe  the  same,  and  worship  the  same  God  ; 
j^nd  yet,  according  to  these  bigots,  if  we  reject  their 


LET.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  l6l 

opiiiioij,     concerning    Jesus    being    the    Messiah,    we 
must  be  judged  unwortky  of  everlasting  life, ^ 

A  heathen  also,  suppose  one  of  Paul's  hearers  at 
Athens,  who  had  just  heard  him  deliver  the  discourse 
at  Mars-hill,  (recorded  in  Acts  xvii.  22 — 31.)  might 
have  addressed  his  countrymen  in  some  such  lan- 
guage as  the  following :  '  This  Jewish  stranger, 
Athenians,  pretends  to  make  known  to  us  The  un- 
known God,  Had  he  been  able  to  make  good  his 
pretensions,  and  had  this  been  all,  we  might  have 
been  obliged  to  him.  But  this  unknown  God,  it 
seems,  is  to  take  place  of  all  others  that  are  known, 
and  be  set  up  at  their  expense.  You  have  hitherto, 
Athenians,  acted  worthy  of  yourselves  ;  you  have  lib- 
erally admitted  all  the  gods  to  a  participation  of  youi 
worship  :  but  now,  it  seems,  the  whole  of  your  sa- 
cred services  is  to  be  engrossed  by  one.  You  have 
never  been  used  to  put  any  restraint  upon  thought  or 
opinion ;  but  with  the  utmost  freedom  have  ever  beea 
in  search  of  new  things.  But  this  man  tells  us  we 
OUGHT  NOT  TO  THINK  that  the  godhead  is  like  unto 
silver  or  gold  ;  as  though  we  were  bound  to  adopt  hi& 
manner  of  thinking  and  no  other.  You  have  beea 
famed  for  your  adoration  of  the  gods;  and  to  this 
even  your  accuser  himself  has  borne  witness  :  yet  he 
has  the  temerity  to  call  us  to  repentance  for  it..  Lt 
seems,  then,  we  are  considered  in  the  light  of  crimz^ 
nals — criminals  on  account  of  our  devotions — criminals 
for  being  too  religious,,  and  for  adhering  to  the  re- 
ligion of  our  ancestors  !  Will  Athenians  endure  this  ? 
Hid  he  possessed  the  liberality  becoming  one  who 
should  address  an  Athenian  audience,  he  would  have 
supposed,  that,  however  we  might  have  beea  hitherto 
mistaken  in   our  devotions,,    yet   our  intenilous   weiie 

O  a 


1^2  o^  cftARirr*  Itf/r,  10. 

good  ;  and  that  *«  All  the  differences  in  modes  of 
worship,  as  practised  by  Jews  and  Athenians,  (who 
are  equally,  by  his  own  confession,  the  off  spring  of' 
God)  may  have  been  only  different  methods,  by  which 
we  have  been  endeavouring  to  honour  and  obey  our 
Common  parent."  *  Nor  is  this  all  :  for  we  are  call- 
ed to  repentance,  becausk  this  unknown  God  hath  «p- 
pointed  a  day  in  ivhich  he  will  judge  the  ivorld,  Sfc . 
So  then,  we  are  to  renounce  our  principles  and  wor- 
ship, and  embrace  his,  on  pain  of  being  called  to 
give  an  account  of  it  before  a  divine  tribunal.  Future 
happiness  is  to  be  confined  to  his  sect  ;  and  our  eter- 
nal welfare  depends  upon  our  embracing  his  opinions  I 
Could  your  ears  have  been  insulted,  Athenians,  witli 
an  harangue  more  replete  with  *'  pride,  arrogance^ 
and  bigotry  f* 

'  But  to  say  no  more  of  this  insulting  language,  the 
importance  he  gives  to  his  opinions,  if  there  were  no 
other  objection,  must  ever  be  a  bar  to  their  being  re- 
ceived at  Athens.  You,  Athenians,  are  friends  to  Jree 
inquiry.  But  should  our  philosophers  turn  christians, 
instead  of  being  famous,  as  heretofore,  for  the  search  of 
new  truth,  they  must  sink  into  a  state  of  mental  stagna- 
tion. "  Those  persons  who  think  that  their  salvation  de- 
pends upon  holding  their  present  opinions,  must  neces- 
sarily entertain  the  greatest  dread  of  Jree  inquiry. 
They  must  think  it  to  be  hazarding  of  their  eternal  wel- 
fare, to  listen  to  any  arguments,  or  to  read  any  books, 
that  savour  of  idolatry.  It  must  appear  to  them  in  the 
same  light  as  listening  to  any  other  temptation,  where- 
by they  would  be  in  danger  of  being  seduced  to  their 
everlasting  destruction.  This  temper  of  mind  cannot 
but  be  a  foundation  for  the  most  deplorable  bigotry, 
obstinacy,  and  ignorance." 


£ET.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  l63^ 

'The  Athenians,  I  doubt  not,  will  generally  abide 
by  the  relitrion  of  their  forefathers:  but  should  airy  in- 
dividuals  think  of  turning  christians,  1  trust  they  will 
never  adopt  that  illiberal  principle  of  making  their 
opinion  necessary  to  future  happiness.  While  this  man 
and  his  followers  hold  such  a  notion  **  of  the  importance 
of  their  present  sentiments,  they  must  needs  live  in  the 
dread  of  all  free  inquiry  ;  whereas  we,  who  have  not 
that  idea  of  the  importance  of  our  present  sentiments, 
preserve  a  state  of  mind  proper  for  the  discussion  of 
them.  If  we  be  wrong,  as  our  minds  are  under  no 
strong  bias,  we  are  within  the  reach  of  conviction;  and 
thus  are  in  the  way  to  grow  wiser  and  better  as  long  as 
we  live." 

By  the  above  it  will  appear,  that  the  apostle  Paul 
was  just  as  liable  as  we  are  to  the  charoe  of  bigotry. 
Those  parts  which  are  marked  with  double  reversed 
commas,  are,  with  only  an  alteration  of  the  term  heresy 
to  that  o^  idolatry^  the  words  of  Dr.  Priestley  in  the 
Second  Section  of  his  Considerations  on  Dijjerences  of 
Opinions.  Judge,  brethren,  whether  these  words  best 
tit  the  lips  of  a  christian  minister,  or  of  a  heathen  cavil- 
ler. The  consequences  alleged  by  the  supposed 
Athenian  against  Paul,  are  far  from  just,  and  might 
be  easily  refuted  :  but  they  are  the  same  for  substance 
as  those  alleged  by  Dr.  Priestley  against  us,  and  the 
premises  from  which  they  are  drawn  are  exactly  the 
same. 

From  the  whole,  I  think,  it  may  safely  be  concluded, 
if  there  be  any 'sentiments  taught  us  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  a  clear  and  decided  manner,  this  is  one : 
That  the  apostles  and  primitive  preachers  considered 
the  belief  of  the  gospel  which  they  preached,  as  neces- 
sary to  the  salvation  of  those  who  heard  it. 


ON    CHAaiTY.  [let.    10* 

Bat  though  it  should  be  allowed  that  a  belief  of 
the  gospel  is  necessary  to  salvation,  it  will  still  be 
objected,  That  Sociuiaiis  believe  the  gospel  as  well 
as  others ;  their  Christianity  therefore  ought  not  to 
be  called  in  question  on  this  account.  To  this  it  is 
replied;  If  what  Socinians  believe  be  indeed  the 
gospel;  in  other  words,  if  it  be  not  deficient  in  what 
is  essential  to  the  gospel  ;  they  undoubtedly  ought 
to  be  acknowledged  as  christians  :  but  if  otherwise, 
they  ought  not.  It  has  been  pleaded  by  some,  who 
are  not  Socinians,  that  we  ought  to  think  tavourably 
of  all  who  profess  to  embrace  Christianity  in  general^ 
unless  their  conduct  be  manifestly  immoral.  But 
we  have  no  such  criterion  atforded  us  in  the  New 
Testament  ;  nor  does  it  accord  with  what  is  there 
revealed.  The  New  Testament  informs  us  of  vari- 
ous wolves  in  shcep^s  clothings  who  appeared  among 
the  primitive  christians  ;  men  who  professed  the  chris- 
tian name,  but  yet  were  in  reality  enemies  to  Chris- 
tianity ;  who  perverted  the  gospel  of  Christy  and 
introduced  another  gospel  in  its  place. 

But  these  men,  it  is  said,  not  Oidy  taught  fiilse 
doctrine,  but  led  immoral  lives.  If  by  immoral  be 
meant  grossly  wicked,  they  certainly  did  not  all  of 
them  answer  to  that  character.  The  contrary  is  plain- 
ly supposed  in  the  account  of  the  false  apostles  among 
the  Corinthians  ;  who  are  called  deceitfal  workers^ 
transforming  themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ, 
And  no  marveU  for  Satan  himself  is  transformed  into 
an  angel  of  light  :  therefore  it  is  no  great  thing  if  his 
ministers  also  ■:e  transformed  as  the  ministers  of  righ^ 
teousness.*  I  wou'tf  not  here  be  understood  as  draw- 
ing a  comparison  between  the  fitlse  apostles  and  the 
Socinians.     My   design  in  this  place,    is   not  to  insiii* 

•  2  Cor.  xi.  13—15. 


LET.     10.]  ON    CHARITY.  l65 

uate  any  specttic  charge  against  them  ;  bat  merely  to 
prove,  that  if  we  judge  favourably  of  the  state  of  every 
person  who  bears  the  christian  name,  and  whose  exte- 
rior moral  character  is  fair,  we  must  judge  contrary 
to  the  scriptures. 

To  talk  of  forming  a  favourable  judgment  from  a 
profession  of  Christianity  in  general,  is  as  contrary  to 
reason  and  common  sense,  as  it  is  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Chrisiianity,  in  general,  must  comprehend 
soine  of  the  leading  particulars  of  it.  Suppose  a  can- 
didate for  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Commons,  on  being 
asked  his  political  principles,  should  profess  himself 
a  friend  to  liberty  in  general.  A  freeholder  inquires, 
*  Do  you  disapprove,  Sir,  of  taxation  without  rep- 
resentation ?  No,  Would  you  vote  for  a  reform  in 
parliament  ?  No,  Do  you  approve  of  the  liberty  of 
the  press  ?  No.*  Would  this  afford  satisfection  ?  Is  it 
not  common  for  men  to  admit  that  in  the  gross  which 
they  deny  i»  detail  ?  The  only  question  that  can  fairly 
be  urged  is  ;  Are  the  doctrines  which  Socinians  disown, 
^supposing  them  to  be  true,  of  such  importance,  that 
a  rejection  of   them   would  endanger    their  salvation  ? 

It  must  be  allowed,  that  these  doctrines  mat/  be 
what  we  consider  them  ;  not  only  true,  but  essential 
to  Christianity.  Christianity,  like  every  other  system 
of  truth,  must  have  some  principles  which  are  essen- 
tial to  it :  and  if  those  in  question  be  such,  it  cannot 
justly  be  imputed  to  pride,  or  bigotry  ;  it  cannot  be 
uncharitable  or  uncandid,  or  indicate  any  want  of 
benevolence,  to  think  so.  Neither  can  it  be  wrong 
to  draw  a  natural  and  necessary  conclusion ,  that  those 
persons  who  reject  these  principles  are  not  christians. 
To  think  justly  of  persons,  is,  in  no  respect,  incon- 
sistent with  a  universal  good-will  towards  them.  It 
is  not  in  the  least  contrary  to  chanty,  to  consider  lui- 


l6#  ON    CHARITY.  [lET.     10^. 

believers  in  the  light  in  which  the  scriptures  repre- 
sent thern  ;  nor  those  who  reject  what  is  essential  to 
the  gospel,  as  rejecting  the  gospel   itself. 

Dr.  Priestley  will  not  deny  that  Christianity  has 
its  great  truths,  though  he  will  not  allow  the  doc- 
trines in  question  to  make  any  part  of  them.  *' The 
being  of  a  God — his  constant  over-ruling  providence, 
and  righteous  moral  government — the  divine  origin 
of  the  Jewish  and  christian  revelations — that  Christ 
was  a  teacher  sent  from  God^ — that  he  is  our  master, 
lawgiver,  and  judge — that  God  raised  him  from  the 
dead — that  he  is  now  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of 
God — that  he  will  come  again  to  raise  all  the  dead, 
and  sit  in  judgment  upon  them — and  that  he  will 
then  give  to  every  one  of  us  according  to  our  works — 
These,  (he  says)  are,  properly  speaking,  the  072 It/ great 
truths  of  religion  ;  and  to  these  not  only  the  Church 
of  England,  and  the  Church  of  Scotland,  but  even  the 
Church  of  Rome  gives  its  assent."*  We  see  here, 
that  Dr.  Priestley  not  only  allows  that  there  are 
certain  great  truths  of  religion,  but  determines  what, 
and  what  "  only''  they  are.  I  do  not  recollect,  how- 
ever, that  the  false  teachers  in  the  churches  of  Ga- 
latia  denied  any  one  of  these  articles  ;  and  yet  with- 
out rejecting  some  of  the  great  and  essential  truths 
of  Christianity,  they  could  not  have  perverted  the 
gospel  of  Christ,  or  have  introduced  another  gospel. 

But  Dr.  Priestley,  it  seems,  though  he  allows  the 
above  to  be  great  truths,  yet  considers  nothing  as 
essential  to  Christianity,  but  u  belief  of  the  divine 
mission  of  Christ.  •"  While  a  man  believes,  (he 
says)  in  the  divine  mission  of  Christ,  he  might  with 
as  much    propriety  be   called  a   Mahometan  as  be  de- 

*  Fam.  Letters.     Letter  xxii. 


LET.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  l&H 

nied  to  be  a  christian."*  To  call  Socinians  Mahomet 
tans,  might  in  most  cases  be  improper  :  they  would 
still,  however,  according  to  this  criterion  of  Christianity, 
be  within  the  pale  of  the  church.  For  Mahomet 
himself,  I  suppose,  never  denied  the  divine  mission 
of  Christ;  nor  very  few  of  those  doctrines  which  Dr. 
Priestley  calls  '*  the  otili/  great  truths  of  religion." 
The  doctor  informs  us,  that  «'  some  people  con- 
sider him  already  as  half  a  Mahometan/'f  Wheth- 
er this  be  just  or  unjust,  according  to  his  notions  of 
christianitv,  a  Mahometan  is  to  be  considered  as  more 
than  half  a  christian.  He  ought,  if  the  above  crite- 
rion be  just,  to  be  acknowledged  as  a  fellow-christian  ; 
and  the  whole  party,  instead  of  being  ranked  with 
heathenish  and  Jewish  unbelievers,  as  they  are  by  this 
same  writer, J  ought  to  be  considered  as  a  sect,  or 
denomination  of  christians.  The  doctor,  therefore, 
need  not  have  stopped  at  the  Church  of  Borne,  but 
might  have  added  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  as 
agreeing  in    his    **  only   great  truths  of  religion." 

I  scarcely  need  to  draw  the  conclusion  which  fol- 
lows from  what  has  been  observed — If  not  only  those 
who  perverted  the  gospel  among  the  Galatians,  did, 
but  even  the  Mahometans  may  acknowledge  those 
truths  which  Dr.  Priestley  mentions,  they  cannot  be 
the  only  great,  much  less  the  distinguishing  truths 
•f  the  christian    religion. 

The  difference  between  Socinians  and  Calvinists, 
is  not  about  the  mere  circumstantials  of  religion.  It 
respects  nothing  less  than  the  rule  of  faith,  the 
ground  of  hope,  and  the  object  of  worship.  If  the 
Socinians  be  right,  we   are  not  only  superstitious  dev- 

*  Consider,  on  Differ,  of  Opin.  §  v. 

f  Pref.  to  Let    to  Mi*.   Burn. 

t  Fam.  Let.  Let.  xvii.  Conclusion. 


ifti  ON    CHARITY,  [lET.    10c 

otees,  and  deluded  dependants  upon  an  arm  of  flesh,* 
but  habitual  idolaters.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  be 
right,  they  are  guilty  of  refusing  to  subject  their  faith 
to  thed  ecisions  of  Heaven  ;  of  rejecting  the  only  way 
of  salvation  ;  and  of  sacrilegiously  depriving  the  Son 
of  God  of  his  essential  glory.  It  is  true,  they  do  not 
deny  our  Christianity  on  account  of  our  supposed 
idolatry  ;  but  no  reason  can  be  assigned  for  it,  except 
their  indifference  to  religious  truth,  and  the  deisti- 
cal   turn  of  their  sentiments. 

If  the  proper  Deity  of  Christ  be  a  divine  truth,  rt  is 
a  great  and  a  fundamental  truth  in  Christianity,  Sodn- 
ians,  who  reject  it,  very  consistently  reject  the  worship 
of  Christ  with  it.  Butworship  enters  into  the  essence 
of  religion  ;  and  the  worship  of  Christ,  according  to 
the  New  Testament,  into  the  essence  of  the  christian 
religion.  The  primitive  christians  are  characterised  by, 
their  calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  The 
apostle,  when  v^riting  to  the  Corinthians,  addressed 
himself  To  the  church  of  God  at  Corinth  :  to  them  that 
were  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  called  to  be  saints  ; 
tcith  all  that  in  everyplace  called  upon  the  mame 
OF  Jesus  Christ  our  LoRD.f  That  this  is  design^ 
ed  as  a  description  of  true  christians  will  not  be  denied  ; 
but  this  description  does  not  include  Socinians,  seeing 
they  call  not  upon  the  name  of  Christ.     The  conclusion 

*  Jer.  xxvii.  6 

\  Mr.  Lindsey's  observation,  that  Called  upon  the  name  of 
Christy  should  be  rendered,  Called  by  the  name  of  Christ,  if  ap- 
plied to  Rom.  X.  13,  would  make  the  scriptui-es  prorfiise  salva- 
tion to  every  one  that  is  called  a  Christian  Salvation  is  prom- 
ised to  all  who  believe,  love,  fear,  and  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  ;  but  never  are  the  possessors  of  it  described  by  a  mere 
accidental  circumstance,  in  which  they  are  not  voluntary,  and 
in  which,  if  they  were,  there  is  no  virtue. 


LET.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  1(?^ 

is,  Sociiiians  would  not  have  been  acknowledged  by  the 
a])ostle  Paul  as  true  christians. 

If  the  Deity  of  Christ  be  a  divine  truth,  it  must  be 
the  Father's  will,  that  all  men  should  honour  the  Son 
in  the  same  sense,  and  to  the  same  degree,  as  they  hon- 
our the  Father  ;  and  those  who  honour  him  not  as  God, 
will  not  only  be  found  opposing  the  divine  will,  but  are 
included  in  the  number  of  those  who,  by  refusing;  to 
honour  the  Son,  honour  not  the  Father  who  hath  sent 
him  :  which  amounts  to  nothing  less,  than  that  the 
worship  which  they  pay  to  the  Father  is  unacceptable  in 
bis  sight. 

If  the  Deity  of  Christ  be  a  divine  truth,  he  is  the 
object  o?  triist  ;  and  that  not  merely  in  the  character  of 
a  witness,  but  as  Jehovah,  in  whom  is  everlasting 
strength.  This  appears  to  be  another  characteristic  of 
true  christians  in  the  New  Testament.  In  his  name 
shall  the  Gentiles  trust — I  know  ichom  I  have  trusted  : 
and  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  which  I  have  committed 
unto  him — In  whom  ye  also  trusted  after  ye  heard  the 
word  of  truth,  the  gospel  of  your  salvation,*  But  if  it 
be  a  characteristic  of  true  Christianity  so  to  trust  in 
Christ,  as  to  commit  the  salvation  of  our  souls  into  his 
hands;  how  can  we  conceive  of  those  as  true  chris- 
tians, who  consider  him  only  as  a  fellow  creature  ;  and 
^-onsequently  place  no  such  confidence  in  him  ? 

If  men  by  nature  be  in  a  lost  and  perishing  condi- 
tion; and  if  Christ  came  to  seek  and  save  them  under 
those  characters,  as  he  himself  constantly  testified  ; 
then  all  tho'se  that  were  whole  in  their  own  eyes,  and 
seemed  to  need  no  physician,  as  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees of  old,  must  necessarily  be  excluded  from  an  in- 
terest in  his  salvation.  And  in  what  other  light  caa 
P 

*  Matt.  xii*.  21.    2  Tim.  5.  1?,     Eph.  i,  12,  13 


170  ON  CMABLiT\:.  [let.   10. 

those  persons  be  considered,  who  deny  the  depravity 
of  their  nature,  and  approach  the  Deity  without  respect 
to  an  atoning  Saviour  ? — Further  : 

Ifthe  death  of  Christ,  as  an  atoning  sacrifice,  be  the 
only  way  of  a  sinner's  salvation  ;  if  there  be  No  other 
name  given  under  heaven,  or  among  men,  by  which  ive 
must  be  saved ;  if  this  be  the  foundation  tvhicJi  God 
hath  laid  in  Zion,  and  if  no  other  will  stand  in  the  day 
of  trial :  How  can  we  conceive  that  those  who  deliber- 
ately disown  it,  and  renounce  all  dependance  upon  it 
for  acceptance  with  God,  should  yet  be  interested  in 
it  ?  Is  it  supposable,  that  they  will  partake  of  \hi\ijbr- 
giveness  of  sins,  which  believers  are  said  to  receive^or 
his  sake,  and  through  his  name^  who  refuse  to  make  use 
of  that  name  in  any  of  their  petitions  ? 

Ifthe  doctrine  of  atonement  bj  the  cross  of  Christ  be 
a  divine  truth,  it  constitutes  the  very  substance  of  the 
gospel  ;  and,  consequently,  is  essential  to  it.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  cross  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament 
as  the  grand  peculiarity,  and  the  principal  glory  of 
Christianity.  It  occupies  a  large  proportion  among  the 
doctrines  of  scripture,  and  is  expressed  in  a  vast  variety 
of  language,  Christ  was  delivered  for  our  ojj'cnces, 
ftoundedfor  our  transgressions,  bruised  for  our  iniqui- 
ties— He  died  for  our  sins — By  his  death  purged  our 
sins — is  said  to  take  (or  bear)  away  the  sins  of  the  world 
—to  have  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross — 
reconciled  us  to  God  by  his  death — redeemed  us  by  his 
blood — washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood — by  his 
mvn  blood  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us — purchas- 
ed his  church  by  his  own  blood,  &c.  &c*  This  kind  of 
iantjuacre  is  so  interwoven  with  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  to  explain  away  the  one,  is  to  subvert 
the  other.  The  doctrine  of  the  cross  is  described  as  be- 
iDg,  not  merely  an  important  branch  of  the  gospel,  \jni 


LET.     ]0.]  ON    CHARITY.  171 

the  gospel  itself.  We  preach  Christ  crucified;  to  the 
Jews  a  stiimbiing'b/ock^  and  to  ike  Greeks  foolishness  : 
but  to  them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ 
the  power  of  God  ^  and  the  wisdom  of  God — /  deter  min- 
ed not  to  knew  any  thing  among  i/ouy  save  Jesus  Christ 
and  him  crucified — An  eneniy  to  the  cross  of  Christ  is 
oiily  atiother  mode  of  clescM'ibing  an  enemy  to  the  gos- 
pt:;!.*  It  vvas  reckoned  a  sufficient  refutation  of  any 
principle,  if  it  could  be  proved  to  involve  in  it  the  conse- 
quence of  Christ's  having  died  in  t'om.f  Christ's  dy- 
ing for  our  sins,  is  not  only  declared  to  be  a  divine  truth 
according  to  the  scriptures,  but  a  truth  of  such  impor- 
tance, that  the  then  present  standing,  and  the  final  sal- 
vation oi' the  Corinthians,  were  suspended  upon  their 
adherence  to  it. J  In  fine,  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  ia 
the  central  point  in  which  all  the  lines  of  evangelical 
truth  meet  and  are  united.  What  the  sun  is  ta  the  sys- 
tem of  nature,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  is  to  the 
system  of  the  gospel  ;  it  is  the  life  of  it.  The  revolv- 
ing planets  might  as  well  exist  and  keep  their  course 
without  the  attracting  influence  of  the  one,  as  a  gospel 
be  exhibited  worthy  of  the  name  that  should  leave  out 
the  other. 

I  am  aware  that  Socinian  writers  do  not  allow  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  to  be  signified  by  that  of  the 
cross.  They  would  tell  you,  that  they  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  cross,  and  allow  it  to  have  a  relative  or 
subordinate  importance,  rendering  the  truth  of  Christ's 
resurrection  more  evident,  by  cutting  off  all  pretence 
that  he  was  not  really  dead.||  Whether  this  meagre 
sense  of  the  phrase  will  agree  with  the  design  of  the 
apostle  in  this  and  various  other  passages  in  the  New 
Testament, — whether  it  contains  a  sufficient  ground  for 

*   I  Cor.  i.  23,  24.  ii.  2.    f  Gal.  ii.  21.     +1  Cor.  xv.  1,  2,  3. 
II  Dr.  Priestley's  Serm.  on  glorying  in  the  cross. 


172  ON    CHARITY.  [lET.    iO. 

that  singular  glorying  of  which  he  speaks,  or  any  prin- 
ciple by  which  the  ivorld  ivas  crucijied  to  him,  and  he 
unto  the  woridy — let  the  ini partial  judge.  But  be  this 
as  it  may,  the  question  here  is  not  whether  the  doctrine 
of  atonement  be  signified  by  that  of  the  cross;  but 
jBupposiig  it  to  be  so,  whether  it  be  of  such  importance 
as  to  render  a  denial  of  it  a  virtual  denial  of  Christiani- 
ty ? — Once  more  : 

If  we  believe  in  the  absolute  necessity  of  regenero" 
tiony  or  that  a  sinner  must  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of 
his  mind,  or  never  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  in  what 
light  must  we  consider  those  who  plead  for  a  reforma- 
tion only,  and  deny  the  doctrine  of  a  supernatural  divine 
influence,  by  which  a  new  heart  is  given  vs,  and  a  new 
spirit  is  put  within  us  ?  Ought  we,  or  can  we  consider 
them  as  the  subject  of  a  divine  change,  who  are  contin- 
ually ridiculing  the  very  idea  of  it  ? 

It  is  common  for  our  opponents  to  stigmatize  us 
with  the  name  of  bigots*  Bigotry,  if  I  understand  it, 
is  a  blind  and  inordinate  attachment  to  one's  opin- 
ions. If  we  be  attached  to  principles  on  account  of 
their  being  our's,  or  because  ice  have  adopted  them, 
rather  than  because  they  appear  to  us  to  be  taught  in 
the  holy  scriptures  ;  if  we  be  attached  to  some  pecu- 
liar principles  to  the  neglect  of  others,  or  so  as  to  give 
them  a  greater  proportion  in  the  system  than  they 
require;  if  we  consider  things  as  Vjeing  of  greater 
importance  than  the  scriptures  represent  them  ;  if  we 
obstinately  adhere  to  our  opinions,  so  as  to  be  averse 
to  free  inquiry,  and  not  open  to  conviction  ;  if  we 
make  so  much  of  principles  as  to  be  inattentive  to 
holy  practice  ;  or  if  a  difference  in  religious  sentiment 
destroy  or  damp  our  benevolence  to  the  persons  of 
those  from  whom  we  differ  ;  in  any  of  these  cases,  we 
are  subject  to   the   charge  of  bigotry.      But   we  may 


f 

LET.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  173 

consider  a  belief  of  certain  doctrines  as  necessary  to 
salvation,  without  coming  under  any  part  of  the  above- 
description.  We  may  be  attached  to  these  doctrines, 
not  because  we  have  already  embraced  them,  but  on 
account  of  their  appearing- to  us  to  be  revealed  in  the 
scriptures :  we  may  give  them  only  that  degree  of 
importance  in  our  views  of  things,  which  they  occu- 
py there  :  we  may  be  so  far  friends  to  free  inquiry,  as 
impartially  to  search  the  scriptures  to  see  whether 
these  things  be  true  ;  and  so  open  to  conviction  as  to 
relinqaish  our  sentiments,  when  they  are  proved  to  be 
unscriptural.  We  may  be  equally  attached  to  practi- 
cal godliness,  as  to  the  principles  on  which  it  is  found- 
ed ;  and  notwithstanding  our  ill  opinion  of  the  relig- 
ious sentiments  of  men,  and  our  apprehensions  of  the 
danger  of  their  condition,  we  may  yet  bear  good-will 
to  their  persons,  and  wish  for  nothing  more  than  an 
opportunity  of  promoting  their  welfare,  both  for  this 
life  and  that  which  is  to  come. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  Calvinists  are  free  from  big- 
otry ;  neither  are  their  opf)onents.  What  1  here  con- 
tend for,  is.  That  their  considering  a  belief  of  certain 
doctrines  as  necessary  to  salvation,  unless  it  can  be 
proved  that  they  make  more  of  these  doctrines  than 
the  scriptures  make  of  them,  ought  not  to  subject 
them  to  such  a  charge. 

What  is  there  of  bigotry  in  our  not  reckoning,  the 
Socinians  to  be  christians,  more  than  in  their  reckon- 
ing us  ic/o/a^er*  .^  Mr.  Madan  complained  of  the  So- 
ciiiians  "  insulting  those  of  his  principles  with  the 
charge  of  idolatry."  Dv.  Priestley  justitied  them  by 
observing,  '*  All  who  ]>elieve  Christ  to  be  a  man,  and 
not  God,  must  necessarily  thittk  it  idolatrous  to  pay 
him  divine  honours  ;  and  to  cail  it  so,  is  no  other  than 
the  necessary  consequence  of  avowing  our  belief,*' 
P   ?, 


174  ON    CHARITY.  [lET.     10. 

Nay,  he  represents  it  as  ridiculous,  that  they  should 
*'  be  allowed  to  think  the  Trinitarians  idolaters,  without 
being  permitted  to  call  them  so.*'*  If  Socinians  have 
a  right  to  think  Trinitarians  idolaters,  they  have 
doubtless  a  right  to  call  them  so,  and,  if  they  be  able, 
to  make  it  appear  so  :  nor  ought  we  to  consider  our- 
selves as  insulted  by  it.  I  have  no  idea  of  being 
offended  with  any  man,  in  affairs  of  this  kind,  for 
speaking  what  he  believes  to  be  the  truth.  Instead 
of  courting  compliments  from  each  other,  in  matters 
of  such  moment,  we  ought  to  encourage  an  unreserved- 
ness  of  expression,  provided  it  be  accompanied  with 
sobriety  and  benevolence.  But  neither  ought  Socin- 
ians to  complain  of  our  refusing  to  acknowledge  them 
as  christians,  or  to  impute  it  to  a  spirit  of  bigotry  ; 
for  it  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  avowing  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  our  belief.  If  we  believe  the 
deity  and  atonement  of  Christ  to  be  essential  to  Chris- 
tianity, we  must  necessarily  think  those  who  reject 
these  doctrines  to  be  no  christians  ;  nor  is  it  inconsist- 
ent with  charity  to  speak  accordingly. 

Again  :  What  is  there  of  bigotry  in  our  not  allow- 
ing the  Socinians  to  be  christians,  more  than  in  their 
not  allowing  us  to  be  Unitarians  ?  We  profess  to 
believe  in  the  divine  unity,  as  much  as  they  do  in 
Christianity.  But  they  consider  a  oneness  of  person, 
as  well  as  of  essence,  to  be  essential  to  the  unity  of 
God  ;  and,  therefore,  cannot  acknowledge  us  as  Uni- 
tarians :  and  we  consider  the  deity  and  atonement  of 
Christ  as  essential  to  Christianity  ;  and,  therefore,  can- 
not acknowledge  them  as  christians.  We  do  not 
choose  to  call  Socinians  Unitiiians,  because  that  would 
be  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  we  ourselves  do 
not  believe  in  the  divine   unity  :  but   we  are  not  ef- 

*  Familiar  Letters,  Let.  VI. 


LET.    10.]  ON    CHAftlTY.  t^ 

fended  at  what  they  think  of  us  ;  nor  do  we  impute 
it  to  bigotry,  or  to  any  thing  of  the  kind.  We  know, 
that  while  they  think  as  they  do  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  our  sentiments  must  appear  to  them  as 
Tri theism.  We  comfort  ourselves  in  these  matters 
with  this,  that  the  thoughts  of  creatures,  uninspired  of 
God,  are  liable  to  mistake.  Such  are  their's  con- 
cerning us,  and  such  are  our's  concerning  them  ;  and 
if  Socinians  do  indeed  love  our  Lord  Jesits  Christ  m 
sinceritij^  it  is  happy  for  them.  The  judgment  of 
their  fellow-creatures  cannot  affect  their  state  :  and 
thousands  who  have  scrupled  to  admit  them  among 
the  true  followers  of  Christ  in  this  world,  would  re- 
joice to  find  themselves  mistaken  in  that  matter  at 
the  last  day. 

It  has  been  pleaded  by  some,  who  are  not  Socinians, 
that  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  not 
necessary  to  salvation.  They  observe.  That  the  dis- 
ciples of  our  Lord,  previou^s  to  his  death,  do  not  ap- 
pear to  have  embraced  the  idea  of  a  vicarious  sacri- 
fice ;  and  therefore  conclude,  that  a  belief  in  a  vica- 
rious sacrifice  is  not  of  the  essence  of  faith.  They 
add.  It  was  owing  to  prejudice,  and  consequently 
wrong,  for  the  disciples  to  disbelieve  this  doctrine,  and 
admit  the  same  thing  with  respect  to  Socinians  :  yet 
as  the  error  in  the  one  case  did  not  .endanger  their 
salvation,  they  suppose  it  may  not  do  so  in  the  other. 
To  this  objection  the  following  observations  are  of- 
fered in  reply. 

First:  Those  who  object  in  this  manner  do  not 
suppose  the  disciples  of  Christ  to  have  a^rreed  with 
Socinians  in  any  of  their  peculiar  sentiments,  except 
the  rejection  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice.  They  alloW 
them  to  have  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  human  de- 
pravity,   divine  influence,  the  miraculous  conceptionai 


174  ON    CHARITY.  [lET.    10. 

the  pre-existence  and  proper  deity  of  Christ,  the  in- 
spiration of  the  scriptures,  &c.  The  case  of  the 
disciples,  therefore,  is  far  from  being  parallel  with 
that  of  the  Socinians. 

Secondly  :  Whatever  were  the  ignorance  and  er- 
ror which  occupied  the  minds  of  the  disciples  relative 
to  the  death  of  their  Lord,  their  case  will  not  apply  to 
that  of  Socinians,  on  account  of  the  difference  in  the 
state  of  revelation,  as  it  stood  before  and  after  that 
event.  Were  it  even  allowed  that  the  disciples  did 
reject  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  being  a  vicarious  sac- 
rifice ;  yet  the  circumstances  which  they  were  under, 
render  their  case  very  different  from  ours.  We  can 
perceive  a  considerable  difference  between  rejecting  a 
principle  before,  and  after,  a  full  discussion  of  it.  It 
would  be  a  far  greater  evil,  in  the  present  day,  to 
persecute  men  for  adheriiig  to  the  dictates  of  their 
consciences,  than  it  was  before  the  rights  of  conscience 
were  so  fully  understood.  It  may  include  a  thou- 
sand degrees  more  guilt  for  this  country,  at  the 
present  time,  to  persist  in  the  slave-trade,  than  to  have 
done  the  same  thing  previous  to  the  late  inquiry  oa 
that  business.  But  the  disparity  between  periods 
with  regard  to  the  light  thrown  upon  these  subjects, 
is  much  less  than  between  the  periods  before  and 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  with  regard  to  the  light 
thrown  upon  that  subject.  The  difference  between 
the  periods,  before  and  after  the  death  of  Christ,  was 
as  o-reat  as  between  a  period  in  which  a  prophecy  is 
unaccomplished,  and  that  in  which  it  is  accomplished. 
There  are  many  things  that  seem  plain  in  prophecy, 
when  the  event  is  past,  which  cannot  then  be  hon- 
estly denied  ;  and  it  may  seem  wonderful  that  they 
should  ever   have   been  overlooked  or  miiitaken  ;    yet 


LET.    la.]  ON    CHARITY*  17^ 

overlooked,  or  mistaken  th^y   liave  been,  and  that  by 
men  of  solid  understanding-  and   real  piety. 

It  was  after  the  death  of  Christ,  when  the  means  of 
knowledge  began  to  diffuse  light  around  them,  that 
the  disciples  were  for  the  tirst  time  reproved  for  their 
slowness  of  heart  to  believe y  in  reference  to  this  subject. 
It  was  after  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  when 
the  way  of  salvation  was  fully  and  clearly  pointed  out,, 
that  those  who  stumbled  at  the  doctrine  of  the  cross 
were  reckoned  disobedient,  in  such  a  degree  as  to  de- 
nominate them  unbelievers,  and  that  the  most  awful 
warnings  and  threatenings  were  pointed  against  them 
as  treading  under  foot  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God. 
It  is  true,  our  Lord  had  repeatedly  predicted  his 
death,  and  it  was  faulty  in  the  disciples  not  to  under- 
stand and  believe  it ;  yet  what  he  taught  on  that  sub- 
ject was  but  little,  when  compared  with  what  followed. 
The  great  salvation,  as  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  ex-* 
presses  \\,  first  began  to  bespoken  by  the  Lord,  and.: 
was  confirmed  to  the  primitive  christians  by  those  who^ 
heard  him  :  but  then  it  is  added,  God  also  bearing 
them  witness,  both  with  signs  and  wonders-,  and  with 
divers  miracles,  and  gijis  of  the  Holy  Ghosf^  ac' 
cording  to  his  own  will.  Now,  it  is  upon  this  accumu- 
lation of  evidence  that  he  asks,  Hoio  shall  we  escape,  if 
we  neglect  so  great  salvation  /* 

A  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  allowed  on 
all  hands  to  be  essential  to  salvation;  as  it  is  an  event, 
upon  which  the  truth  of  Christianity  rests, f  But  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  previous  to  the-event,  were  as  much 
in  the  dark  on  this  article  as  on  that  of  the  atonement. 
Even  to  the  last,  when  he  was  actually  risen  from  the 
dead,  they  visited  his  tomb  in  hope  of  finding  him,  and 
could   scarcely  believe  their  senses  with  respect  to  his 

*  Heb.  ii.   1—4.     t  1  Cor.  xiv.   14,  15.     Rom.  x,  9. 


i7&  ^N    CHARITY.  [let.    10. 

Iiavi nor  left  jt :  for  as  yet  they  knew  not  the  scripture^ 
that  he  must  rise  ai;ain  Jrom  the  dead.  Now  if  the 
resLirrection  of  Christ,  though  but  little  utKierstood 
before  the  event,  may  after  it  be  considered  as  essen- 
tial to  Christianity;  there  is  no  reason  to  conclude  btrt 
that  the  same  may  be  said  of  his  atonement. 

Thirdly:  It  is  not  clear  that  the  disciples  did  reject 
the  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice.  They  had  all 
their  lives  been  accustomed  to  vicarious  sacrifices  :  it  is, 
therefore,  very  improbable,  that  they  should  be  preju- 
diced against  the  idea  itself.  Their  objection  to 
Christ's  laying  down  his  life,  seems  to  have  been  direct- 
ed simply  ag-ainst  his  dyin^,  rather  than  aoainst  his 
dying  as  a  vicarious  sacrifice.  Could  they  have  been 
reconciled  to  the  former,  for  any  thing  that  appears, 
they  would  have  readily  acquiesced  in  the  latter. 
Their  objection  to  the  death  of  Christ  seems  to  have 
been  more  the  effect  of  ignorance  and  misguided  affec- 
tion, than  of  a  rooted  opposition  of  principle  :  and 
therefore  when  they  came  to  see  clearly  into  the  de- 
sign of  his  death,  it  is  expressed  not  as  if  they  had  es- 
sentially altered  their  sentiments,  but  remembered  the 
words  which  he  had  spoken  to  them  ;  of  which,  while 
their  minds  were  beclouded  with  the  notions  of  a  tem- 
poral kingdom,  they  could  form  no  clear  or  consistent 
ideas,  and  therefore  had  forgotten  them.* 

And  notwithstanding  the  ignorance  and  error  which 
attended  the  disciples,  there  are  things  said  of  them 
which  imply  much  more  than  the  objection  would 
seem  to  allow  : — Whither  I  go,  saith  Christ,  ye  h>ow  ; 
and  the  way  ye  know.  As  if  he  should  say,  I  am  not 
going  to  a  strange  place,  but  to  the  house  of  my 
Father  and  of  your  Father;  with  the  way  to  which 
you   are   acquainted,   and   therefore  will  soon  be  with 

*  Luke  XXV i,  6— &. 


LET.     10.]  ON    CHARITY.  179 

me.  Thomas  said  unto  kirn,  Lord,  ive  know  no(  whith- 
er thou  goesty  and  hoiv  can  we  know  the  icay  ?  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  I  am  the  wai/,  the  truth,  and  the  life : 
710  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me — lfy€  had 
known  me^  ye  should  have  known  my  Father  also  : 
and  from  hetweforth  ye  know  him,  and  have  seen  him,* 
From  this  passage  it  appears,  that  the  disciples  had 
a  general  idea  of  salvation  through  Christ  ;  though 
they  did  not  understand  particularly  how  it  was  to 
be  acromplished.  Farther  :  Christ  taught  his  hear- 
ers, saying.  Except  ye  eat  my  flesh,  and  drink  my 
blood,  ye  have  vo  life  in  you — and  the  bread  that  I  will 
gifw  is  my  flesh,  that  I  ivill  give  for  the  life  of  the 
world.  On  this  occasion  many  of  his  nominal  dis- 
ciples were  ofiende*^',  and  walked  no  more  with  him  ; 
but  the  triH:  disciples  were  not  offended.  On  the 
contrary,  being  a.sked,  JVill  ye  also  go  away  ^  Peter 
ansicered,  Lordy  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast 
the  words  of  eternal  life.f  From  this  passage,  it 
plainly  appears,  that  the  true  disciples  of  Christ 
were  even  at  that  time  considered  as  believing  so 
much  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  giving  himself  for 
the  life  of  the  \iorl<j,  as  to  eat  his  flesh  and  -drink  his 
blood  ;  for  our  Lord  certainly  did  not  mean  to  con- 
demn them  as  having  no  life  in  them.  So  far  were 
they  from  rejecting  tliis  doctrine,  that  the  same  words 
at  which  the  false  disciples  v;ere  offended,  were  to  them 
the  words  of  eternal  life*  Probably  this  great  truth  .vas 
sometimes  more  and  sometimes  less  apparent  to  their 
view.  At  those  periods  in  which  their  minds  were  occu- 
pied with  the  notion  of  a  temporal  kingdom,  or  in  which 
events  turned  up  contrary  to  their  expectations,  they 
would  be  all  in  darkness  concerning  it  ;  yet,  with  all 
their  darkness,  and  with   all   their  doubts,  it  does  not 

*  John  xiv.  4— r.  t  Jo^"  "^i-  51—68. 


180  O^    CflARITY.  [let.    It). 

appear  to  be  a  doctrine  which  they  can  be  said  to 
have  rejected. 

No  person,  I  think,  who  is  open  to  conviction 
can  be  a  bigot,  whatever  be  his  religious  senti- 
ments. Our  opponents,  it  is  true,  are  very  ready  to 
suppose  that  this  is  our  general  character,  and  that 
we  are  averse  to  free  inquir}'^  ;  but  this  may  be  more 
than  they  are  able  to  prove.  We  acknowledge  that 
we  do  not  choose  to  circulate  books  indiscriminately 
among  our  friends,  which  are  considered  by  us  &s 
containing  false  and  pernicious  doctrines  ;  neither  do 
other  people.  I  never  knew  a  zealous  dissenter  eager 
to  circulate  a  book  containing  high-church  principles 
among  his  children  and  connections;  nor  a  churchman 
those  which  contain  the  true  principles  of  dissent, 
ill  like  manner,  an  Anti-trinitarian  will  not  propagate 
the  best  productions  of  Trinitarians.  If  they  happen 
to  meet  with  a  weak  performance,  in  which  the  sub- 
ject is  treated  to  disadvantage,  they  may  i'eel  no  great 
objection  to  make  it  public;  but  it  is  otherwise  with 
respect  to  those  in  which  it  is  treated  to  advantage.  I 
have  known  some  gentlemen  affecting  to  possess  what 
has  been  called  a  liberal  mind,  who  have  discovered 
no  kind  of  concern  at  the  indiscriminate  circulation 
oT  Socinian  productions  ;  but  I  have  also  perceived 
that  those  gentlemen  have  not  been  far  from  their  king- 
dom of  heaven.  If  any  person  choose  to  read  the 
writings  of  a  Socinian,  or  of  an  atheist,  he  is  at  liberty 
to  do  so  :  but  as  the  Monthly  Revleivers  themselves 
observe,  <*  Though  we  are  always  ready  to  engage  in 
inquiries  after  truth,  and  wish  to  see  them  at  all 
times  promoted  ;  yet  we  choose  to  avoid  disseminating 
noiions   which   we  cannot  approve."* 

As  to  being  open  to  conviction  ourselves^  it  ha« 
l>een  frequently  observed,  that  Socinians  discover  as 
•  Monthly  Review  Enlarged,  Vol.  vi.  page  555 ^ 


tliT.    10.]  ON    CHARITY.  181 

great  an  aversion  to  the  reading  of  Dur  writings,  as 
we  can  discover  to  the  reading  of  theirs.  Sooie  will 
read  them  ;  but  not  manv.  Out  of  a  hundred  persons, 
whose  minds  lean  towards  the  Socinian  system,  should 
you  put  into  their  hands  a  well-written  Calvinistic 
performance,  and  desire  them  carefully  and  seriously 
to  read  it  over,  I  question  whether  tive  would  comply 
with  your  request.  So  far  however  as  my  observation 
extends,  I  can  per<?eive  in  such  persons  an  eagerness 
for  reading  those  writing?  which  suit  their  taste,  and 
a  contempt  of  others,  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  what 
is  perceivable  in  people  of  other  dei^ominatioiis. 

Dr.  Priestley  su</;gests,  that  the  importance  which 
we  give  to  our  sentiments  tends  to  prevent  an  earnest 
and  in»partial  search  after  truth.  **  While  they  im- 
bibe such  a  notion  of  their  present  sentiments,  they 
must  needs  (he  says)  live  in  the  dread  of  all  free 
i.iquiry  ;  whereas  we,  who  have  not  that  idea  of  the 
importance  of  our  present  sentiments,  preserve  a  state 
of  mind  proper  for  the  discussion  of  them,  if  we  be 
wrong,  as  our  minds  are  under  no  strong  bias,  we  are 
within  the  reach  of  cojiviction  ;  and  thus  are  in  the  way 
to  grow  wiser  and  better  as  long  as  we  live,"*" 

Mr.  BeUham,  however,  appears  to  think  the  very 
reverse.  He  pleads,  and  I  think  very  justly,  that  an 
klea  of  the  non-importance  cf  sentiment  tends  to  de^ 
stroy  a  spirit  of  inquiry,  by  becalming  the  mind  into  a 
state  of  indifference  and  carelessness.  He  complains  of 
those  of  his  own  party  (the  Socinians)  who  maintain  that 
sincerity  is  every  thing,  that  nothnig  is  of  much  value 
but  an  honest  heart,  and  that  speculative  opinions,  the 
caiit  na^ne  for  those  interesting  doctrinf^s,  whic!^  the 
wise  and  good  in  tivery  age  have  thought  worthy  of  the 

Q 

•  Consider,  on  Differ    of  Op'm.    |  II. 


t^  ON    CHARITY.  [lET.    10. 

most  serious  discussion,  that  these  speculative  opinions, 
as  they  are  opprobriously  called,  are  of  little  use. 
What  is  this,  (adiis  he)  but  to  pass  a  severe  censure 
upon  those  illustrious  names,  whose  acute  and  learned 
Jabours  have  been  successfully  employed  in  clearing  up 
the  difficulties  in  which  these  important  subjects  were 
involved,  to  condemn  their  own  conduct  in  wasting  so 
much  of  their  time  and  pains  upon  such  useless  specu- 
lations, and  to  check  the  progress  of  religious  inquiry 
and  christian  knowledge i  Were  I  a  friend  to  the  pop- 
ular maxim,  That  speculative  opinions  are  of  no  im- 
portance, I  would  endeavour  to  act  consistent  with  my 
principles  :  I  would  content  myself  with  believing  as 
my  ffithers  believed  ;  I  would  take  no  pains  to  acquire 
or  diffuse  knowledge  :  I  would  laugh  at  every  attempt 
to  instruct  and  to  meliorate  the  world  :  I  would  treat  as 
a  visionary  and  a  fool  every  one  who  should  aim  to 
extend  the  limits  of  science  ;  I  would  recommend  to 
my  fellow-creatures  that  they  should  neither  lie  nor 
defraud,  that  they  should  neither  swear  falsely  nor 
steal,  should  say  their  prayers  as  they  have  been 
taught;  but,  as  to  any  thing  else,  that  they  need  not 
p-ive  themselves  anv  concern  ;  for  that  honesty  was 
every  thing,  and  that  every  expectation  of  improving 
their  circumstances,  by  cultivating  their  understandings 
and  extending  their  views,  would  prove  delusive  and 
chimerical,*'* 

None  will  imagine  that  I  have  quoted  Mr.  Belsham 
on  account  of  ray  agreement  with  him  in  the  great 
principles  of  the  gospel.  What  he  would  reckon  im- 
portant truth,  I  should  consider  as  pernicious  error  : 
and,  probably,  his  vieus  of  the  importance  of  what  he 
-accounts  truth,  are  not  equal  to  what  I  have  attempted 
to   maintain.      But  in   this    general   principle    we  are 

*  Sermon  on  the  Importance  of  Truth,  pp.  5,  6» 


tET.     JO.]  ON    CHARITY.  188 

agreed  :  That  our  conceiving  of  truth  as  being  of  but 
Uitle  importance^  has  a  tendency  to  check  free  inquiry 
rather  than  promote  it;  which  is  the  reverse  of  what 
we  are  taught  by  Dr.  Priestley. 

To  illustrate  the  subject  more  fully  :  Suppose  the 
possession  of  a  precious  stone,  of  a  certain  descrip- 
tion, to  entitle  us  to  the  possession  of  some  very 
desirable  object  ;  and  suppose  that  none  of  any  oth- 
er description  would  anssver  the  same  end ;  Would 
that  consideration  tend  to  prejudice  our  minds  in  fa- 
vour of  any  stone  we  might  happen  to  possess,  or  pre- 
vent an  im  jartial  and  strict  inquiry  into  its  properties? 
Would  it  not  rather  induce  us  to  be  more  inquisitive 
and  careful,  lest  we  should  be  mistaken,  and  so  lose 
the  prize  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  could  imagine, 
that  any  stone  would  answer  the  same  end,  or  that  an 
error  in  that  matter  were  of  trifling  importance  as  to  the 
issue,  would  it  not  have  a  tendency  to  promote  a  spirit 
of  carelessness  in  our  examinations  ;  and  as  all  men  are 
apt  in  such  cases  to  be  prejudiced  in  favour  of  what 
they  already  have,  to  make  us  rest  contented  with  what 
we  had  in  possession  ;  be  it  what  it  might  ? 

It  is  allowed,  however,  that  as  every  good  has  its 
counterfeit,  and  as  there  is  a  mixture  of  human  preju- 
dices  and  passions  in  all  we  think  or  do,  there  is  danger 
of  this  principle  degenerating  into  an  unchristian  sever- 
ity ;  and  of  its  being  exercised  at  the  expense  of  that 
benevolence  which  is  due  to  all  men.  There  is  noth-^ 
ing,  however,  in  this  view  of  things,  which  in  its  own 
nature  tends  to  promote  these  evils:  for  the  most  un- 
favourable opinion  of  a  man's  principles  and  state,  may 
consist  with  the  most  perfect  benevolence  and  compas- 
sion towards  his  person.  Jesus  Christ  thought  as  ill  of 
the  principles  and  state  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, 
and  the  generality  of  the  Jewish  nation,  as  any  of  us 
think  of  one  another;  yet  he  wept  over  Jerusalem,  and 


I'84  ON    CHARITY,  [lET.    10. 

to  his  last  hour  sought  her  welfare.  The  apostle  Paul 
had  the  same  conception  of  the  principles  and  state  of 
the  generality  of  his  countrymen  as  Christ  himself  had, 
and  much  the  same  as  we  have  of  the  Socinians.  He 
considered  them,  though  they  followed  after  the  law  of 
righteousness^  or  were  very  devout  in  their  way,  yet  as 
not  having  attained  to  the  law  of  righteousness ;  in  oth- 
er words,  as  not  being  righteous  persons  ;  which  the 
Gentiles,  who  submitted  to  the  gos{)el,  were.  And 
wherefore  ?  Because  they  sought  it  not  hy  faith,  but  as 
it  were  by  the  works  of  the  law  /  For  they  stumbled  at 
that  stuynbling  stone.*  Y^et  Paul  in  the  same  chapter, 
and  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  declared,  that  he  had 
great  heaviness,  and  continual  sorrow  in  his  heart — 
Nay,  that  he  could  wish  hims^elf  accursed  from  Christ, 
for  his  brethren's  sake^  his  kinsmen  according  to  the 
flesh  ! 

But  why  need  I  say  any  more  ?  Dr.  Priestley  him- 
self allows  all  I  plead  for  :  "  The  man  (says  he) 
whose  sole  spring  of  action  is  a  concern  for  lost  souls, 
and  a  care  to  preserve  the  purity  of  that  gospel  which 
alone  teaches  the  most  effectual  irjethod  of  their  re- 
covery from  the  power  of  sin  and  Satan  unto  God,  will 
ftel  an  ardour  of  mind  that  will  prompt  liim  strenu- 
ously to  oppose  all  those  whom  he  considers  as  ob- 
structing his  benevolent  designs.  (He  adds)  I  could 
overlook  every  thing  in  a  man,  who,  I  thought,  meant 
nothing  but  my  everlasting  welfare.*'f  This,  and 
nothing  else,  is  the  temper  of  mind  which  I  have  been 
endeavouring  to  defend  ;  and,  as  Dr.  Priestley  has 
here  generously  acknowledged  its  propriety,  it  becomes 
lis  to  acknowledge,  on  the  other  hand,  that  every 
species  of  zeal  for  sentiments,  in  which  a  concern  for 
the  everlasting   welfare   of  men  is   wanting,   is  an  un-- 

•  Rom.  ix.  30—52.        f  ^'^^^^''  of  C pinion.  §  i. 


J  Kl.     U.]  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  186. 

hallowed  kind  of  fire  ;  for  which  whoever  indulges  it, 
will  receive  no  thanks  fVooi  Him,  whose  cause'  they 
may  imagine  theaiselve*  to  have  espoused. 

1  am,  &c. 

LETTER  XL  ^m^^m^i^f^fiM^ 

THE  SYSTEMS  COMPARED,  AS  TO  THEIR  INFLUENCE  IN 
PROMOTING    THE    LOVE    OF    CHKIST. 

Ch t  istian  Brethren , 

iV  the  holy  scriptures  be  a  proper  medium  by  which 
to  judge  of  the  nature  of  virtue,  it  must  be  allowed 
to  include  the  love  of  Christ  ;  nay,  that  love  to  Christ 
is  one  of  the  cardinal  virtues  of  the  christian  scheme  ; 
seeing  it  occupies  a  most  important  place  in  the  doc- 
trines and  precepts  of  inspiration.  He  that  loveth  me, 
said  Christ,  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father — If  God  were 
your  Father,  ye  would  love  me — Whom  having  not 
seen,  ye  love  :  in  ivhom  though  noiv  xje  see  him  not,  yet 
believing,  ye  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of 
glory — Grace  be  with  all  them  that  love  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity — If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord^ 
Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be  anathema  maranatha** 

From  these  passages,  with  many  others  ♦hat  might 
be  produced,  we  may  conclude  that  love  to  Christy  is^ 
not  only  a  christian  virtue,  but  essential  to  the  very 
existence  of  Christianity  ;  nay,  to  morality  itself,,  if  by 
that  term  be  meant  a  conformity  to  the  moral  law. 
The  following  lines,  though  expressed  by  a  poet,  con- 
taMi  more  than  a  poetic  flight,  even  the  words  oi^ 
truth  and  soberness  : 

"  Talk  they  of  Morals  ?  O  thou  bleeding  Love, 

^^  The  grand  morality  is  love  of  Thee  !"  yoitng, 

♦  John  xiy.:,il.  viii.  43.  1  Pet.  i.  8,  Eph.  vi.  24. 

1  Cor.  xvi.  22, 


IB6  love    to    CHRIST,  [lET.    II. 

In  judging  which  of  the  systems  in  question  is  most 
adapted  to  promote  love  to  Christ,  it  should  seem 
sufficient  to  determine,  Which  of  them  tends  most 
to  exalt  his  character— which  places  his  mediation  in 
.the  most  important  light — and  which  represents  us  as 
most  indebted  to  his  undertaking. 

With  respect  to  the^r^f  ;  Every  being  commands^ 
our  affection,  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  intellect 
which  he  possesses  ;  provided  that  his  goodness  be 
equal  to  Iiis  intelligence.  We  feel  a  respect  towards 
an  animal,  and  a  concern  at  its  death,  which  we  do  not 
feel  towards  a  vegetable  ;  towards  those  animals  which 
are  very  sagacious,  more  than  those  which  are  other- 
>vise  ;  towards  man,  more  than  to  mere  animals  ;  and 
towards  men  of  enlarged  powers,  if  they  be  but  good 
as  well  as  great,  more  than  to  men  in  common.  Ac- 
cording to  the  degree  of  intellect  which  they  possess, 
80  much  they  have  of  being,  and  of  estimation  in  the 
scale  of  being.  A  man  is  of  more  value  than  many 
sparroivSf  and  the  life  of  David  was  reckoned  to  be 
worth  ten  thousand  of  those  of  the  common  people.  It 
has  been  thought  to  be  on  this  principle  that  God, 
possessing  infinitely  more  existence  than  all  the  creat- 
ures taken  together,  and  being  as  gof)d  as  he  is  great, 
is  to  be  loved  and  revered  without  bounds,  except 
those  which  arise  from  the  limitation  of  our  powers; 
that  is,  with  all  our  hearty  and  soul,  and  mind  and 
strength. 

Now,  if  these  observations  be  just,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  which  of  the  systems  in  question  tends  most 
to  promote  the  love  of  Christ  :  that  which  supposes  hina 
to  be  equal,  or  one  with  God  ;  or  that  which  reduces 
him  to  the  rank  of  a  mere  fellow-creature.  In  the 
same  proportion  as  God  himself  is  to  be  loved  above 


LET.    11.]  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  IBf 

man,  so  is  Christ  to  be  loved,  supposing  him  to  be 
truly  God,  above  what  he  is,  or  ought  to  be,  supposing 
him  to  be   merely   a   fellow-ma n^ 

The  prophets,  aposdes,  and  primitive  christians, 
seem  to  have  felt  this  motive  in  all  its  force.  Hence, 
in  their  various  expressions  of  love  to  Christ,  they 
frequently  min^^le  acknowledgments  of  his  divine 
dignity  and  excellency.  They,  indeed,  never  seem 
atraid  of  going  too  far,  or  of  honouring  him  too  much  ; 
but  dwell  upon  the  dignity  and  glory  of  his  person,  as 
their  darling  theme.  When  David  meditated  upon 
this  subject,  he  was  raised  above  himself.  Mi/  heart, 
saith  he,  is  endiiing  a  good  matter  :  I  speak  of  the 
things  tohich  I  have  made  touching  the  King  :  my 
tongue  is  as  the  pen  of  a  ready  writer  I  Thou  art  fairer 
than  the  children  of  men — Thy  throne^  O  God,  isforev" 
er  and  ever  :  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right  sceptre 
— Gird  thy  sword  «pon  thy  thigh,  O  most  mighty, 
with  thy  glory  and  thy  majesty.  The  expected  Mes- 
siah was  frequently  the  subject  of  Isaiah's  prophecies. 
He  loved  him  ;  and  his  love  appears  to  have  beeu 
founded  on  his  dignity  and  divine  excellency.  Utito 
us  a  Child  is  born  :  unto  us  a  Son  is  given  ;  and  the 
government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulders  ;  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful^  Counsellor,  the  mighty 
God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  peace. 
He  thus  describes  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  : 
The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare 
ye  the  way  of  Jehovah,  make  straight  in  the  desert  a 
high  way  for  oua  God — Behold  the  Lord  God  will 
come  with  a  strong  hand,  aud  his  arm  shall  rule  for 
him  ;  behold,  his  reward  is  with  him,  and  his  work 
before  him.  He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shepherd  ; 
He   shall  gather  the  lambs  with  his  army   and  carry 


Wtm  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  [lET.    11. 

them  in  his  bosom,  and  shall  gently  lead  those  that  are 
with  young, — Zdcharias,  the  father  of  Jolui  the  Bap- 
tist, so  loved  the  INIessiah  as  to  rejoice  in  his  own 
child  chiefly  because  he  was  appointed  to  be  his  proph- 
et and  forerunner.  And  thou  ch'ild^  said  the  enraptured 
parent,  shall  be  called  the  prophet  of  thk  highkst  : 
for  thou  shah  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  pre- 
pare his  ways*  John  the  Baptist  himselt,  when  the 
Jews  artfully  endeavoured  to  excite  his  jf^alousy  on 
account  of  the  superior  ministerial  success  of  Christ, 
replied  ;  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  witness,  that  I  said 
I  am  not  the  Chrkt — hk  that  cometh  from  above 
IS  ABOVE  ALL  :  he  that  is  of  the  earth  is  earthly^ 
and  speaketh  of  the   earth  :    he  that  comlth  from 

HEAVEN    IS    ABOVE    ALL.f 

The  apostles,  who  saw  the  Lord,  and  who  saw  the  ac- 
complishment of  what  the  prophets  foretold,  were  not 
disappointed  in  him.  Their  love  to  him  was  gieat,  ai^d 
their  representations  of  his  person  and  character  ran  in 
the  same  exalted  strain.  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  said  the  beloved  disciple,  and  the  W  rd  was  with 
God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God,      All  things  wehk  made  by  him, 

AND  VniHOUT  HIM  WAS  NOT  ANY    THING  MADE  THAT 

WAS  MADE*     He  was  in  the  world,   and  the  world 
WAS  made  by  him,  and  the  world  knew  him  not.     And 

•  Ps.  xlv.  1—6.         Isa.  ix.  6.    xl.  3,  10,  11.      Luke  i.  76. 

f  John  iii.  28 — 31.  Qiiery.  In  what  sense  could  Clirist  be* 
said  to  come  from  above,  even  fi'om  heaven^  if  he  was  merely 
a  man,  and  came  into  the  world  like  other  men  ?  It  could  not 
be  on  account  of  his  office^  or  of  receiving  his  mission  from 
God  ;  for,  in  that  sense,  John  was  from  heaven  as  well  as  he. 
Was  it  not  fur  the  same  reason  which  John  elsewhere  gives 
for  his  being  preftrred  before  him  ;  viz.  that  he  was  befobc 
HIM  ?  John  i.  15,  30. 


LET.    11.]  LOTE    TO    CHRIST.  180 

the  Word  was  made  Jle shy  and  dwelt  among  us^  (and  we 
beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  a^  q/*  the  on  ly  begotten^ 
OF  the  Father)  yVi//  of  grace  and  truth. — Thomas  in* 
sisted  upon  an  unreasonable  kind  of  evidence  of  the 
resurrection  of  his  Lord  from  the  dead  ;  saying.  Except 
I  shall  see  in  his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put 
my  fingers  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my 
hands  into  his  side,  I  will  not  believe.  W  hen  reproved, 
by  our  Lord's  offering  to  gratify  him  in  his  incredulous 
proposal,  he  confessed,  with  a  mixture  of  shame,  grief, 
and  affection,  that  however  unbelieving  he  had  been,  he 
was  now  satisfied  that  it  was  indeed  his  Lord,  and  no 
other,  saying,  My  Lord,  and  my  God  ! — The  whole 
Epistle  'to  the  Hebrews  breathes  an  ardent  love  ta 
Christ,  and  is  intermingled  with  the  same  kind  of  lan- 
guage. Jesus  i& there  represented  as  upholding  ALL 
THINGS  BY  THE  WORD  OF  HIS  POWER  :  as  the  object 
of  ANGELIC  ADORATION  :  as  he  to  whom  it  was  said, 
Thy  THRONE,  O  God,  is  forever  and  ever  :  as  he 
who  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  con- 
cerning whom  it  is  added,  the  heavens  are  the 
work  of  thine  hands  :  as  superior  to  Moses,  the 
one  being  the  builder  and  owner  of  the  house,  even 
God  that  built  all  things  ;  and  the  other,  only  »  servant 
in  it  :  as  superior  to  Aaron  and  to  all  those  of  his  or- 
der, A  GREAT  high  priest,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  : 
and  finally,  as  infinitely  superior  to  angels  ;  for,  to 
which  of  the  angels,  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art  my 
Son  ?  or,  Sit  on  my  right  hand  ?  Hence  the  gospel 
is  considered  as  exhibiting  a  great  salvation;  and 
those  who  neglect  it,  are  exposed  to  a  recompense  of 
wratli  which  they  shall  not  escape,* 

•  John  i.  1,  2,  3,  14.     XX.  24—28.      Heb.  u  3,  5,  6,  8^ 
10,   U^       iii.  3,  4,  5,  6.        iv«  14.        ii.  3. 


19^  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  [lET.    II. 

Paul  could  scarcely  mention  the  name  of  Christ, 
without  adding  some  strong  encomium  or  other  in  his 
praise.  When  he  was  eninnerating  those  things  which 
renderedh his  countrymen  dear  to  him,  he  mentions  their 
being  Israelites,  to  whom  pertained  the  adoption^  and 
the  glory,  and  the  covenants ,  and  the  giving  oj  the  laiv, 
and  i\w  service  oj'  God,  and  ihv  promises  ;  whose  wi-re 
the  fathers^  and  of  whom,  as  cOiiceming  the  flesh, 
Christ  came.  Here,  it  seems,  he  might  have  stopped  ; 
but,  having  mentioned  the  name  of  Christ,  he  could  not 
content  himself  without  adding,  Who  is  ovf:r  all, 
God  15LEssv:p  forever.  Amen»  Having  occasion 
also  to  speak  of  him  in  his  Epis^tie  to  the  Colossians,  as 
God's  dear  Son,  in  whom  we  have  redemption  throi.gh 
Itis  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  he  could  not 
forbear  adding.  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God, 
the  Jir St' born  of  every  creature.  For  by  him  were  all 
things  created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth, 
visible  and  invisible,  whether  thrones,  or  dominions,  or 
principalities,  or  powers  :  all  things  were  created  by 
him,  and  for  him  :  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by 
him  all  things  consist  /* 

And  now,  brethren,  I  might  appeal  to  you  on  the 
justness  of  Dr.  Priestley's  assertion,  that  '*  In  no  sense 
whatever,  not  even  in  the  lowest  of  all,  is  Christ  so 
much  as  called  God  in  all  the  New  Testament. "f  I 
might  appeal  to  you,  whether  such  language  as  the 
above  would  ever  have  proceeded  from  the  sacred  wri- 
ters, had  they  embraced  the  scheme  of  our  opponents. 
But,  waving  these  particulars  as  irrelative  to  the  imme- 
diate point  in  hand,  1  appeal  to  you  whether  such  love 
as  the'prophets  and  apostles  expressed  towards  Christ, 
could  consist  with   his   being   merely  a  fellow-creature, 

♦  Rom.  ix.  4,  5      Col    i.  13—17. 
f  Letters  to  Mr.  Burn,  Let.  i, 


LET.     II.]  LOVE    TO    CHRIST,  Igf 

and  their  considering  hira  as  such  ;  whether  the  raauiier 
in  which  they  expressed  that  love,  upon  the  principles 
of  our  opponents,  instead  ot*  being  accjeptable  to  God, 
could  have  been  any  other  than  the  height  of  extrava- 
gance, and  the  essence  of  idolatry  ?  Judge  also  for  your- 
selves, brethren,  which  of  the  systems  in  question  has 
the  greatest  tendency  to  promote  such  a  spirit  of  love  to 
Christ  as  is  here  exemplified  :  that  which  leads  us  to 
admire  these  representations,  and  on  various  occasions 
to  adopt  the  same  expressions  ;  or  that  which  employs 
us  in  coldly  criticising  away  their  meaning  :  that  which 
leads  us  without  fear  to  give  them  their  full  scope;  or 
that  which,  while  we  are  honouring  the  Son,  would  ex- 
cite apprehensions  lest  we  should  in  so  doing  dishonour 
the  Father  ? 

The  next  question  to  be  discussed  is.  Which  of  the 
two  systems  places  the  mediation  of  Christ  in  the  most 
important  point  of  light  ?  That  system,  doubtless, 
which  tinds  the  greatest  use  for  Chri^t,  or  in  which  he 
occupies  the  most  important  place y  must  have  4:he  great- 
est tendency  to  promote  love  to  him.  Suppose  a  sys- 
tem of  politics  were  drawn  up,  in  which  civil  liberty 
occupied  but  a  very  small  portion,  and  was  generally 
kept  out  of  view  ;  or  if,  when  brought  forward,  it  was 
either  for  the  purpose  of  abating  the  high  notions  which 
some  people  entertain  of  it,  or  at  least,  of  treating  it  as 
a  matter  not  absolutely  necessary  to  good  civil  govern- 
ment ;  who  would  venture  to  assert,  that  such  a  system 
was  friendly,  or  its  abettors  friends,  to  civil  liberty  I 
This  is  manifestly  a  case  in  point.  The  Socinian  sys- 
tem has  but  little  u?e  for  Christ  ;  and  none  at  ail,  as  an 
atoning  sacrifice.  It  scarcely  ever  mentions  him,  unless 
it  be  to  depreciate  those  views  of  his  dignity  which  oth- 
ers entertain  ;  or  in  such  a  way  as  to  set  aside  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  his  mediation. 


192  LOVE   TO    CHRIST.  [I'ET.    IK 

It  is  not  so  in  our  view  of  things.  We  find  so  much 
use  for  Christ,  if  1  may  so  speak,  that  he  appears  as  vhe 
soul  which  animates  the  whole  body  of  our  divinity  ;  as 
the  centre  of  the  system,  diffusing  light  and  life  to  every 
part  of  it.  Take  away  Christ  ;  nay,  take  away  the 
Deity  and  atonement  of  Christ,  an  J  the  whole  ceremo« 
nial  of  the  Old  Testament  appears  to  ns  little  more  than 
a  dead  mass  of  uninteresting  matter  :  prophecy  loses 
almost  all  that  is  interestino-  and  end-earing  ;  the  gospel 
is  annihilated,  or  ceases  to  be  that  good  neves  to  lost 
sinners  which  it  professes  to  be;  practical  religion  is 
divested  of  its  most  powerful  motives  ;  the  evangelical 
dispensation  of  its  peculiar  glory  ;  and  heaven  itself  of 
its  most  tranj>porting  joys. 

Tiie  sacred  penmen  appear  to  have  written  all  along 
upon  the  same  principles.  They  considered  Christ  as 
the  AH  in  nil  of  their  religion  ;  and,  as  such,  they  loved 
him  with  their  whole  hearts.  Do  they  speak  of  the^rv* 
tabernacle  ?  They  call  it  -d  fip^ure  for  the  time  then  pres^ 
ent,  in  which  were  ojfered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  that 
could  not  make  him  that  did  the  service  perfect  as  per- 
taining to  the  eonscience — But  Christ  being  come  a 
High  Priest  of  good  things  to  come,  by  a  greater  and 
more  perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  icitk  hands,  that  is  to 
sai/',  not  of  this  building  ;  iieither  by  the  blood  of  goafs 
and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood,  he  entered  in  once  into 
the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for 
us.  Do  they  speak  of  prophecy  ?  They  call  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  the  spirit  of  it.  Of  the  gospel  ?  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  crucifijd.  Of  the  medium  by  which 
the  world  was  crucrtied  to  tlum,  and  they  to  the  world  ? 
It  is  the  same.  The  very  reproach  of  Christ  had  a 
value  stamped  upon  it,  so  as,  in  their  esteem,  to  surpass 
all  the  treasures  of  the  present  world.  One  of  the  most 
affecting  ideas  which  they  afford  us  of  heaven,  consists 


LET.    11.]  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  1^3 

in  ascribing  everlasting  glory  and  dominion  to  him  fliat 
■ioved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood. 
Ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand,  and  thousands  ofthou^ 
sands  were  heard  with  a  loud  voice,  saying.  Worthy 
IS  THE  Lamb  that  was   slain,  to  receive  power, 

AND  RICHES,  AND  WISDOM,  AND  STRENGTH,  AND 
HONOUR,    AND    GLORY,    AND    BLESSING  I* 

Let  us  select  a  particular  instance  in  the  character 
of  Paul.  This  apostle  seemed  to  be  swallowed  up  in 
love  to  Christ.  His  mercy  to  him  as  one  of  the  chief  of 
sinners,  had  bound  his  heart  to  him  with  bonds  of  ever- 
lasting gratitude.  Nor  was  this  all  ;  he  saw  that  glory 
in  his  person,  office,  and  work,  which  eclipsed  the  ex- 
cellence of  all  created  objects,  which  crucified  the 
world  to  him,  and  him  unto  the  world.  What  things 
were  gain  to  me,  those  I  counted  loss  for  Christ,  Yea, 
doubtless,  and  I  count  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excels 
lency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord  ;  for 
whom  I  have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things.  Nor  did 
he  now  rtpent  ;  for  he  immediately  adds.  And  do 
<ount  them  but  dung,  that  I  may  win  CJtrist,  and  be 
found  in  him  ;  not  having  mine  own  righ-teousness 
zvhich  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith 
of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith 
— That  I  may  know  him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrect 
iion,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  being  made 
conformable  unto  his  death.  When  his  friends  wept 
because  he  would  not  be  dissuaded  from  going  up  to 
Jerusalem,  he  answered.  What  mean  ye  to  weep,  and  to 
break  mine  heart  ?  For  I  am  ready  not  to  be  bound  only^ 
hut  also  to  die  at  Jerusalem,  vFor  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  I  Feeling  in  himself  an  ardent  love  to 
Christ,   he  vehemently  desired  that  others  might  love 

R 
^  Keb.  ix.  9-11.    Rev.  xix.  10.     1  Cor.  i.  23.     Gal.  vl.  14- 
Heb.  xi.  26.    Rev.  v.  11    12. 


194  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  {lET.    IK 

l)im  too.  For  this  cause  he  botved  his  knees  to  the 
Father  of  our  hard  Jesus  Christ  \u  behalf  of  the 
Ephesians ;  praying  that  Christ  might  dwell  in  their 
hearts  hy  faith.  He  represented  him  to  them  as  the 
medium  of  all  spiritual  blessings  ;  of  election^  adop^ 
tioriy  acceptance  with  God ^  redemption^  and  the  forgive" 
ness  of  sins  :  o^  di^wi\xv^  inheritance,  and  of  a  present 
earnest  of  it ;  as  Head  ov^er  all  things  to  the  churchy 
and  as  him  that  filleth  all  in  all.  He  described 
him  as  the  only  way  of  access  to  God^  and  as  the  sole 
foundation  of  a  sinner's  hope  ;  whose  riches  ivere  un^ 
searchable,  and  the  dimensions  of  his  love  passing 
knowledge.* 

If  any  drew  back,  or  deviate<I  from  the  simplicity  of 
the  gospel,  he  felt  a  most  ardent  thirst  for  their  recove- 
ry :  witness  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  the  Gala- 
tians,  and  (if,  as  is  generally  supposed,  he  was  the  wri- 
ter of  it)  to  the  Hebrews.  If  any  one  drew  back,  and 
were  not  to  be  reclaimed,  he  denounced  against  him  the 
divine  declaration,  My  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in 
him!  And  whatever  might  be  the  mind  of  others,  like 
Joshua  he  was  at  a  point  himself:  Henceforth,  he  ex- 
claims, let  no  man  trouble  me  ;  for  I  bear  in  my  body 
the  marks  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  If  he  wished  to  live, 
it  was  for  Christ;  or,  if  to  die,  it  was  to  be  with  h'xvti. 
He  invoked  the  best  of  blessings  on  those  who  loved  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity  ;  and  denounced  an 
anathema  maranatha  on  those  who  loved  him  not.f 

The  reason  why  I  have  quoted  all  these  passages  is, 
to  show  that  the  primitive  gospel  v! as  full  of  Christ ; 
or,  that  Christ  was,  as  it  were,  the  centre  and  the  life  of 
the  evangelical  system  ;  and  that  this,  its  leading  and 

•  Phil.  ili.  7—10.     Acts  xxi.  13.     Epb.  ch.  i,  ii,  iii. 
t  Heb.  X.  38.    Gal.  vi.  17.     Phil.  i.  20,  21.     Eph.  vi.  24, 
1  Cor.  xvJ.  22. 


LET*    IK]  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  195 

priucipal  characteristic,  tended  wonderfully  to  promote 
the  love  of  Christ.  Now,  brethren,  let  me  appeal  to 
you  a^ain  :  Which  of  the  systems  in  question  is  it, 
which  resembles  that  of  the  apostles  in  this  particular, 
and  consequently  has  the  greatest  tendency  to  promote 
love  to  Christ  ?  That  of  which  Christ  is  the  All  in  alT; 
or  that  in  which  he  is  scarcely  ever  introduced,  except 
for  the  purpose  of  representing  him  as  a  *^*  mere  fellow 
creature,  a  fallible  and  peccable  man  ?" 

The  Third,  and  last  question  to  be  discussed,  (if, 
indeed,  it  need  any  discussion)  is.  Which  of  the  two 
systems  represents  us  as  most  indebted  to  Christ* s  under" 
taking?  Our  Lord  himself  has  laid  it  down  as  an  in- 
controvertible rule,,  that  those  who  have  much  forgiven^ 
will  love  him  much  ;  and  that  those  who  have  little  for^ 
given,  tcill  love  him  but  little.  That  system,  therefore^ 
which  supposes  us  the  greatest  debtors  to  forgiving 
love,  must  needs  have  the  greatest  tendency  to  promote 
a  return  of  love. 

Our  views  with  respect  to  the  depravity  oj^ human  na* 
tiire  are  such,  that,  upon  our  system,  we  have  much 
more  to  be  forgiven,  than  our  opponents  have  upon 
theirs.  We  suppose  ourselves  to  have  been  utterly  de- 
praved ;  our  very  nature  totally  corrupted  ;  and,  con- 
sequently, that  all  our  supposed  virtues,  while  our 
hearts  were  at  enmity  with  God,  were  not  virtue  in  re- 
ality, but  destitute  of  its  very  essence.  We  do  not, 
therefore,  conceive  of  ourselves,  during  our  unregenera- 
ey,  as  having  been  merely  5^a2w^c?  by  a  few  imperfections  ; 
but  as  altogether  polluted,  by  a  course  of  apostacy  from 
God,  and  black  rebellion  against  him.  That  which  is 
called  sin  by  our  opponents,  must  consist  chiefly,  if  not 
entirely,  in  the  irregularity  of  a  man's  outward  conduct, 
else  they  could  not  suppose,  as  Dr.  Priestley  does,  that 
**^  Virtue  bears  the  same  proportion  to  vice,  that  happi* 


196  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  [lET.    11. 

ness  does  to  misery,  or  health  to  sickness,  in  the 
rworld."*  That  is,  that  there  is  much  more  of  the  for- 
Kier  than  of  the  latter.  But  the  merely  outward  irreg- 
ularities of  men  bear  no  more  proportion  to  the  whole 
of  their  depravit}^  according  to  our  views  of  it,  than  the 
particles  of  water  which  are  occasionally  emitted  from 
the  surface  of  the  ocean,  to  the  tide  that  rolls  beneath. 
The  religion  of  those  who  make  sin  to  consist  in  little 
besides  exterior  irregularities,  or  who  conceive  of  the 
virtues  of  men  as  greatly  exceeding  their  vices,  appears 
to  us  to  resemble  the  religion  of  Paul,  previous  to  his 
conversion  to  Christianity.  While  he  thought  of  noth'- 
ing  but  the  irregularities  of  his  exterior  conduct,  his 
virtues,  doubtless,  appeared  to  him  to  outweigh  his 
vices  ;  and,  therefore,  he  concluded  all  was  well  ;  that 
he  was  in  a  fair  way  to  everlasting  happiness  ;  or,  as  he 
himself  expresses  it,  alive  without  the  laiv.  But  when, 
through  the  glass  of  that  divine  commandment  which  pro- 
hibits the  very  inclination  to  evil,  he  saw  the  corruption 
that  reigned  within,  transgression  assumed  a  very  differ- 
ent appearance  :  It  was  then  a  mighty  ocean,  that  swell- 
ed, and  swept  off  all  his  legal  hopes.  Sin  revived,  and 
he  died.  In  short,  our  views  of  human  de[;ravity  induce 
ns  to  consider  ourselves,  by  nature,  as  unworthy  \  as 
lost,  and  ready  to  perish  ;  so  that  if  we  are  saved  at  all, 
it  must  be  by  rich  grace,  and  by  a  great  Saviour,  I 
scarcely  need  to  draw  the  conclusion.  That,  having,  ac- 
cording to  our  system,  most  to  be  forgiven,  we  shall,  if 
we  truly  enter  into  it,  love  most. 

Further  :  Our  system  supposes  a  much  greater  ma- 
lignity in  sin,  than  that  of  our  opponents.  When  we 
speak  of  sin,  we  do  not  love  to  deal,  as  Mr.  Belsharia 
does,  in  extenuating  names.  We  find  no  authority 
for  calling  it  *' human   frailty;"    or   for   affixing   any 

♦  Let,  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Vol.  i.  Let.  v. 


I:ET.    If.]  tOtE   TO    CHKIST.  197^ 

idea  to  it  that  shall  represent  us  rather  as  objects 
worthy  of  the  compassion  of  God,  than  as  subjects  of 
that  which  his  soul  abhorreth.  We  do  not  see  ho\r 
Mr.  Belsham,  or  those  of  his  sentiments,  while  they 
speak  of  moral  evil  in  so  diminutive  a  style,  can  possi- 
bly conceive  of  it  after  the  manner  of  the  inspired 
writers,  as  an  evil  and  bitter  thing  ;  or,  as  it  is  ex- 
pressed in  that  remarkable  phrase  of  the  apostle  Paul, 
exceeding  sirifuL* 

Our  opponents  deny  sin  to  be  in  any  sense  an  infinite 
evil  ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  deserving  of  endless 
punishment  ;  or  that  such  punishment  will  follow  up- 
on it.  Nobody,  indeed,  supposes  that  sin  is  in  all 
respects  intinite.  As  committed  by  a  finite  creature, 
and  admitting  of  different  degrees,  it  must  be  finite, 
and  will  doubtless  be  punished  hereafter  with  different 
degrees  of  punishment ;  but,  as  committed  against  a 
God  of  infinite  excellence,  and  as  tending  to  infi- 
nite anarchy  and  mischief,  it  must  be  infinite.  All 
that  is  meant,  I  suppose,  by  calling  sin  an  infinite  evil, 
is,  that  it  is  deserving  of  endless  punishment  ;  and 
this  can    never  be  fairly    objected  to  as  an   absurdity. 

*  The  expression,  exceeding  sinful,  is  very  forcible.  It 
resembles  the  phrase,  ^ar  more  exceeding,  or  rather  excw*/vf/j/ 
exceeding,  in  2  Cor.  iv.  7.  It  seems  that  the  holy  Spirit  him- 
self could  not  find  a  worse  nanr.e  for  sin  than  its  own  If  we 
speak  of  a  treacherous  person  wc  call  him  a  yudas  :  if  of  Judas, 
we  call  him  a  devil ;  but  if  of  Satan,  Me  want  a  comparisons 
because  we  can  find  none  that  is  worse  than  himself.  We  must 
therefore  say  as  Christ  did.  When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh 
of  his  aivn.  It  was  thus  with  the  Apostle  when  speaking  of  the 
evil  of  his  own  heart,  That  sin  by  the  corthmandnient  might  be- 
come— what  ?  He  wanted  a  name  worse  than  its  own— he  could 
not  find  one — ^he  therefore  unites  a  strong  epithet  to  the  thin§ 
itself,  calling  it  exceeding  sinful. 

R  % 


19S  LOVE    TO    CHRIST.  [lET.    !!• 

If  there  be  no  absurdity  in  the  immortality  of  a  sinner's 
existence,  there  is  none  in  supposing  him  to  deserve  a 
punishment,  be  it  in  what  degree  it  may,  that  shall 
run  commensurate  with  it.  There  is  no  absurdity  in 
supposing  a  sinner  to  have  been  guilty  of  such  crimes 
as  to  deserve  misery  for  as  long  a  duration  as  he  is 
capable  of  sustaining  it.  But  whatever  may  be  said, 
as  to  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  this  sentiment,  thus 
much  is  clear,  that  in  proportion  as  our  opponents 
conceive  diminutively  of  the  evil  of  sin,  they  diminish 
the  grace  of  forgiveness  ;  and  if  that  forgiveness  come 
to  us  through  Christ  (as  is  plainly  implied  in  their 
loving  him  most  who  have  most  forgiven)  it  must 
needs  follow,  that  in  the  same  proportion  the  lave  of 
Christ  is  sapped  at  the  foundation. 

Once  more  :  The  expense  at  which  we  suppose  our 
forgiveness  to  have  been  obtained,  is  a  consideration 
which  endears  to  us  both  the  gift  and  the  Giver.  We 
do  not  conceive  of  Christ,  in  his  bestowment  of  this 
blessing  upon  us,  as  presenting  us  with  that  which  cost 
him  nothii  g.  If  the  portion  given  by  Jacob  to  his  son 
Joseph  was  heightened  and  endeared  by  its  being  ob- 
tained by  the  sword  and  the  how  ;  much  more  is  a  title 
to  eternal  life,  by  its  being  obtained  through  the  death 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  this  that  attracts  the 
hearts  of  those  who  are  described  as  singing  a  new  song 
to  their  Redeemer,  Thou  zvast  slain^  and  hast  redeemed 
us  to  God  by  thy  bloody  out  of  every  kindred ^  and  tongue^ 
and  people,  and  nation. 

It  does  not  appear,  from  any  thing  I  have  seen,  that 
the  system  of  our  opponents  can,  with  any  plausibility, 
be  pretended  to  equal  ours  respecting  love  to  Christ. 
All  that  can  be  alleged,  with  any  colour  of  reason,  all 
however,  that  I  have  noticed  is  this  ;  that  in  propoition 
as  we,  ill   this  wa},   furiiish  motives  of  love  lo  Christy 


LET.    12.]  VENERATION    FOR,    Scc,  199 

we  detract  from  those  of  love  to  the  Father,  by  dimin- 
ishing the  freeness  of  his  grace,  and  exhibiting  him  as 
one  that  was  incapable  of  bestowing  forgiveness,  unless 
a  price  was  paid  for  it.  ^o  this  it  is  replied  :  If  the  in- 
capacity of  the  Father,  to  shew  mercy  without  an  atone- 
ment, consisted  in  a  want  of  love,  or  any  thing  of  nat- 
ural implacability,  or  even  a  reluctance  to  the  bestow- 
ment  of  mercy,  there  would  be  force  in  the  objec- 
tion:  but  if  it  be  no  other  than  the  incapacity  of  a 
righteous  Governor,  who,  whatever  good  will  he  may 
have  to  an  offender,  cannot  bear  the  thought  of  passing 
by  the  offence  without  some  public  expression  of  dis- 
pleasure against  it ;  that  while  mercy  triumphs,  it  may 
not  he  at  the  expense  of  law,  of  equity  and  of  the  gene- 
ral good;  such  an  incapacity  rather  infers  a  perfection 
than  an  imperfection  in  his  nature,  and  instead  of  di- 
minishing our  regard  for  his  character,  must  have  a 
powerful  tendency  to  increase  it. 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  XIT. 

ON    VENERATION    FOR   THE    SCRIPTURES. 

Christian  Brethren, 

IF  we  mav  judge  of  the  nature  of  true  piety,  by  the 
examples  of  the  prophets  and  holy  men  of  old,  we  may 
conclude,  with  certainty,  that  an  affectionate  attach- 
ment to  the  Holv  Scriptures,  as  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  enters  deeply  into  the  spirit  of  it.  The  Holy 
Scriptures  were  dcsciibed  by  David,  under  the  names 
of  the  tvord,  statutes^  laws,  precepts,  judgments,  and  teS" 
timomes  of  God  ;  and  to  these  all  through  the  Psalms, 
especially  in  the  1 19th,  he  professes  a  most  ardent  at- 
tachment.    Such  language  as  the  following  was  very 


200  VENERATION    FOR  [lET.    12. 

common  with  him,  as  well  as  others  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  ;  Oh  how  I  love  thy  law  ! — lliy  word  is  a 
lamp  unto  my  Jeety  and  a  light  unto  my  path — Open 
thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things  out 
of  thy  law — My  soul  hreaketh  for  the  longing  that  it 
hath  unto  thy  judgments  at  all  times — Thy  words  ivere 
found,  and  I  did  eat  them,  and  thy  word  was  unto  me 
the  joy  and  rejoicing  of  my  heart —  Thy  statutes  have 
been  my  song  in  the  house  of  my  pilgrimage — The  law 
of  thy  mouth  is  better  to  me  than  thousands  of  gold 
and  silver  • 

Dr.  Priestley  often  professes  great  regard  for  the  sa- 
cred writings,  and  is  very  severe  on  Mr,  Burn,  for  sug- 
gesting that  he  denied  **  the  infallibility  of  the  apostol- 
ic testimony,  concerning  the  person  of  Christ."  He  al- 
so tells  Dr.  Price,  "  No  man  can  pay  a  higher  regard  to 
proper  scripture  authority  than  1  do."  We  may  there- 
fore take  it  for  granted,  that  a  regard  for  the  authority 
of  scripture  is  a  virtue;  a  virtue  that  our  opponents,  as 
well  as  we,  would  be  thought  to  possess. 

1  wish  in  this  Letter  to  inquire,  supposing  the  sacred 
writers  to  have  been  honest  and  good  men.  What  a  re- 
gard to  the  proper  authority  of  their  writings  includes, 
and  to  compare  it  with  the  avowed  sentiments  of  our 
adversaries.  By  these  means,  brethren,  you  may  be  the 
better  able  to  judge  for  yourselves,  whether  the  spirit 
which  animates  the  whole  body  of  the  Socinian  divinity 
does  not  breathe  a  language  unfriendly  to  the  sacred 
writings,  and  carry  in  it  something  hostile  to  every 
thought  being  subdued  to  the  obedience  of  Christ. 

Jn  order  to  judge  of  a  regard  for  proper  scriptural 
authority,  it  is  necessary  in  the  first  place,  to  have  re- 
course to  the  professions  of  the  sacred  writers  concern- 
ing what  they  wrote.  If  any  man  venerate  the  authori- 
ty of  scripture,  he  must  receive  it  as  being  what  it 


LET.     12.]  THE    SCRIPTURES.  Wl 

PROFESSES  TO  BE,  AND    FOR    ALL    THE    PURPOSES    FOR 

WHICH  IT  PROFESSES  TO  BE  WRITTEN.  If  the  Scrip- 
tures profess  to  be  divinely  inspired,  and  assume  to  be 
the  infallible  standard  of  faith  and  practice,  we  must 
either  receive  them  as  such  ;  or,  if  we  would  be  con- 
sistent,^ disown  the  writers  as  impostors. 

The  professions  of  the  sacred  writers  are  as  follow  : 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me,  and  his  word  was 
in  my  tongue  :  the  God  of  Israel  said,  the  Rock  of  Is-' 
rael  spake  to  me — Thus  saith  the  Lord — And  Jehosha^ 
jyhat  stood,  and  said.  Hear  me,  O  Judah,  and  ye  inhabit 
tants  of  Jerusalem,  Believe  in  the  Lord  your  God,  so 
shall  ye  be  established  ;  believe  his  prophets,  so  shall  ye 
prosper** 

New  Testament  writers  bear  ample  testimony  to  the 
inspiration  of  those  under  the  Old  Testament.  All 
scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God  ;  and  is  profit a^ 
blefor  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruct 
tion  in  righteousness  ;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  per" 
feet,  thoroufihly  furnished  unto  all  good  ivorks — No 
prophecy  of  the  scripture  is  of  private  interpretation — it 
is  liOt  to  be  considered  as  the  private  opinion  of  a  falli- 
ble man,^  as  is  the  case  with  other  productions— ^or  the 
prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man,  but 
holy  me.i  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.f 

Nor  did  the  New-Testament  writers  bear  testimony 
to  the  ins|»iratio  1  of  the  prophets  only,  but  considered 
their  own  writings  as  equally  iiispired  r  If  any  man 
think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  ac' 
knowledge  that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord.  Peter  ranks  the  epistles. 
of  Paul  with   other  scriptures.^     There  seems  to  have 

*  2  Sam.  xxni.  2,  3.     Isai.  xliii.  1.     2  Chron.  xx.  20. 
1 2  Tim.  ill  16,17.  2  Pet.  i.  20,21.    i  ICor.  xiv.  27-  2  Pet.  iii.  1$: 


202  VENERATrON    FOR  [lET.    12,^ 

been  one  instance  in  which  Paul  disowned  his  having^ 
received  any  commandment  from  the  Lord,  and  in 
^hich  he  proceeded  to  give  his  own  private  judgmertt  :* 
but  this  appears  to  have  been  a  particular  exception 
from  a  general  rule,  of  which  notice  was  expressly 
given  ;  an  exception,  therefore,  which  tends  to  strength- 
en rather  than  weaken  the  argument  for  apostolic 
inspiration. 

As  the  sacred  writers  considered  themselves  as  di- 
vinely inspired,  so  they  represented  their  writings  a« 
the  infallible  test  of  divine  truth,  to  which  all  appeals^ 
were  to  be  made,  and  by  which  every  controversy  in 
religious  matteis  was  to  be  decided.  To  the  laic,  and 
to  the  testimony ;  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this 
rule,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them — These  are 
the  true  sayings  of  God — That  which  is  noted  in  the 
scriptures  of  truth — What  saith  the  scriptures  ? — 
Search  the  scriptures ;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have 
eternal  life,  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me-^ 
The  Bereans  searched  the  scriptures  daily  tehether 
those  things  were  so.'\' 

The  sacred  writers  did  not  spare  to  denounce  the 
most  awful  judgments  against  those  who  should  either 
pervert  their  writings,  add  to  them,  or  detract  froni 
them.  Those  who  wrested  the  apostolic  epistles,  are 
said  to  have  lorested  them,  as  they  did  the  other  scrips 
iures,  to  their  own  destruction — Though  we,  or  an, 
angel  from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  youy 
than  that  ivhich  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  them 
be  accursed — Whatever  thing  I  command  you,  observe 
and  do  it  ;  thou  shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish 
from  it — If  any  man  shall  add  unto  these  things,   God 

•  1  Cor.  vii.  25.     f  Isa.  viii.  20.     Rev.  xix.  9.     Dan.  x.  21. 
Rom.  iv.  3.        John  r.  39.        Acts  xvii.  It, 


LET.    12.]  THE    SCRIPTURES.  20(8^ 

shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in 
this  book.  And  if  any  man  shall  take  away  from  the 
words  of  the  hook  of  this  prophecy^  God  shall  take 
away  his  part  otU  of  the  book  of  life.*" — INothiiig  short 
of  the  most  perfect  divine  inspiration  could  justify 
such  language  as  this,  or  secure  those  who  used  it 
from  the  charge  of  bold  presumption  and  base  im- 
position, 

Dr,  Priestley  often  professes  great  regard  for  the 
scriptures  ;  and,  as  has  been  observed  before,  is  very 
severe  on  Mr.  Burn,  for  representing  him  as  denying 
^'  the  infallibility  of  the  apostolic  testimony  concerning 
the  person  of  Christ."  Far  be  it  from  me  to  wish  to 
represent  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Priestley  in  an  unfair 
manner,  or  in  such  a  light  as  he  himself  could  justly 
disavow.  All  1  mean  to  do,  is,  to  quote  a  passage 
or  two  from  his  own  writings,  and  add  a  few  remarks 
upon  them. 

Speaking  in  favour  of  reverence  for  the  sacred 
writings,  he  says,  *' Not  that  I  consider  the  books  of 
scripture  as  inspired,  and  on  that  account  entitled  to 
this  high  degree  of  respect,  but  as  authentic  records 
of  the  dispensations  of  God  to  mankind,  with  every 
particular^  of  which  we  cannot  be  too  well  acquainted.'* 

Again  :  «'  If  you  wish  to  know  what,  in  my  opin- 
ion, a  christian  is  bound  to  believe  with  respect  to  the 
scriptures,  I  a?iswer,  that  the  books  which  are  universal- 
ly received  as  authentic^  are  to  be  considered  as  faithful 
records  of  past  transactions,  and  especially  the  account 
of  the  intercourse  which  the  Divine  Being  has  kept  up 
with  mankind  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the 
time  of  our  Saviour,  and  his  apostles.  No  christian  is 
answerable  for  more  than  this.  The  writers  of  the 
books  of  scripture  were  men,  and  there forv fallible ;  but 
•  2  Peter,  iit.  16,     Gal.  I  8.     Deut.  xii.  23.     Rev.  xxii.  18,  19. 


^4  VENERATION    FOR  '       [lET,    12. 

all  that  we  have  to  do  with  tl!em  is  in  the  character  of 
historians  and  tvitnesses  of  what  they  heard  and  saw. 
Of  course  their  credibility  is  to  be  estimated  like  that  of 
other  historians  ;  viz.  from  the  circumstances  in  which 
they  wrote,  as  with  respect  to  their  opportunities  of 
knowing  the  truth  of  what  they  relate,  and  the  biasses 
to  which  they  might  be  subject..  Like  all  other  histori- 
ans, they  were  liable  to  mistakes,  with  respect  to  things 
of  small  moment,  because  they  might  not  give  sufficient 
attention  to  them  ;  and  with  respect  to  their  reasoniiig^ 
we  are  fully  at  liberty  to  judge  of  it  as  well  as  that  of 
any  other  men,  by  a  due  consideration  of  the  proposi- 
tions they  advance,  and  the  arguments  they  allege. 
For  it  by  no  means  follows,  because  a  man  has  had 
communications  with  the  Deity  for  certain  purposes, 
and  he  may  be  depended  upon  with  respect  to  his  ac- 
count of  those  communications,  that  he  is  in  other  res- 
pects more  wise  and  knowing  than  other  men."* 

*^You  say,  (says  he,  in  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Price) 
That  I  dov  not  allow  of  scriptural  authority;  but,  in- 
deed, my  friend,  you  should  have  expressed  yourself 
with  more  caution.  No  man  can  pay  a  higher  regard 
to  proper  scriptural  authority,  than  I  do  ;  but  neither 
I,  nor  I  pre  sume  yourself,  believe  implicitly  ve  ry 
thing  that  is  advanced  by  any  writer  in  the  Old  or  New 
Testament.  I  believe  all  the  writers,  without  excep- 
tion, to  have  been  men  of  the  greatest  probity,  and  to 
have  been  well  informed  of  every  thing  of  consequence 
of  which  they  treat;  but  at  the  same  time  I  believe 
them  to  have  been  metiy  and  consequently  faUibki  and 
liable  to  mistake  with  respect  to  things  to  which  they 
had  not  given  much  attention,  or  concerning  which 
they  had  not  the  means  of  exact  information;  which  I, 
take  to  be  the  case  with  respect  to  the  account  that 

*  Let  to  a  Phil.  Unfe.  Part  U.  pref.  p.  13.  also  Let.  v. 


LET.    12.]  THE    SCRIPTURES.  SO^ 

Moses  has  given  of  the  creation  and  the  fall  of  man.'* 
In  a  late  performance,  entitled.  Letters  to  the  PhilosO" 
phers  and  Politicians  of  France^  Dr.  Priestley  speaks 
much  in  the  same  strain.  "That  the  books  of  scrip- 
ture (he  sa3's)  were  written  by  particular  divine  inspira- 
tion, is  a  thing  to  which  the  writers  themselves  make  no 
pretensions.  It  is  a  notion  destitute  of  all  proof,  and 
that  has  done  great  injury  to  the  evidence  of  Chris- 
tianity.'** 

From  this  account,  taken  all  together,  you  will  ob- 
serve, brethren,  that  Dr.  Priestley  does  not  believe  ei- 
ther the  Old  or  the  New  Testament  to  be  divinely  in^ 
spired ;  to  be  so  inspired  as  that  he  is  *'  bound  implic- 
itly to  believe  every  thing  (and  might  he  not  have  add- 
ed, any  thing?)  which  the  writers  of  those  books  ad- 
vance.** Ele  believes,  that  the  scriptures,  instead  of 
being  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  are  only  ''  faith- 
ful records  of  past  transactions  f  *  and  that  no  authority 
attends  them,  except  what  attends  the  writings  of  any 
other  honest  and  well  informed  historian ;  nor  even 
that,  in  many  cases:  for  he  maintains,  that  *'  no  chris- 
tian is  bound  to  consider  any  of  the  books  of  scripture 
as  faithful  records  of  past  transactions,  unless  they  have 
been  universally  received  as  authentic."  That  is,  if 
any  person,  at  least  any  considerable  number  of  per- 
sons, at  any  period,  have  thought  proper  to  dispute  the 
authenticity  of  any  of  these  writings,  that  part  imme- 
diately ceases  to  have  any  claim  upon  posterity,  and 
may  be  rejected  with  impunity.  And  even  those  wri- 
ters, whose  works  upon  the  whole  are  allowed  as  au- 
thentic, are  supposed  to  have  written  upon  subjects  **  to 
which  they  had  not  given  much  attention,  and  concern- 
iftg  which  they  were  not  possessed  of  sufficient  means  of 
S 
♦  Page  38. 


^06  VENERATION    FOR  [lET.    12. 

inforaiation  ;"  and,  consequently,  in  those  cases  are  not 
to  be  regarded.  This  is  the  whole  of  what  he  means  by 
** proper  scriptural  authority."  This  is  the  ground  on 
which,  while  he  speaks  of  the  sacred  writers  as  falllhky 
he,  nevertheless,  maintains  the  infallibility  of  their  tes- 
timony concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  He  does  not 
pretend  to  say  the  apostles  were  inspired  in  that  article, 
though  not  in  others  ;  but  merely  that  this  was  a  case 
in  which,  by  the  mere  exercise  of  their  senses,  they 
were  competent  to  decide,  and  even  certain  of  deciding 
right.  Whether  these  notions  of  proper  scriptural  au- 
thority will  accord  with  the  foregoing  professions,  I 
leave  you  to  judge;  also,  if  Dr.  Priestley's  views  be 
right,  whether  the  sacred  writers,  professing  what  they 
did,  could  be  men  of  the  *'  greatest  probity.'* 

You  will  observe  farther,  that  the  fallibility  which 
Dr.  Priestley  imputes  to  the  sacred  writers,  as  being 
jnerii  must  rest  upon  this  principle  ;  That  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  God  himself  so  to  inspire  a  man  as  to  preserve 
him  from  error,  without  destroying  his  nature  ;  and  as 
he  considers  Christ  as  a  mere  man,  perhaps  it  is  on  this 
principle  that  he  maintains  him  to  be  *«  fallible  and 
peccable."  Yet  he  has  never  been  able  to  produce  one 
example  in  which  he  has  actually  failed.  But  it  should 
seem  very  extraordinary  for  a  fallible  and  peccable  man 
to  go  through  the  world  in  such  a  manner,  that  his 
worst  enemies  could  not  convict  him  of  a  single  failure, 
nor  accuse  him  of  any  sin.  If  this  matter  be  capable 
of  proof,  let  Dr.  Priestley  prove  it.  Though  the  Jews 
declined  the  challenge,  yet  it  is  possible  that  he  may 
possess  sufficient  **  magnanimity"  to  accept  it.* 

♦  When  Dp.  Priestley  charges  tlie  Mosaic  history  of  tlie 
creation  and  fall  of  man  with  being  a  lame  account ,  it  was  im- 
puted to  his  magnanimity. 


XrET.    12.]  THE    SCRIPTURES.  ,  207 

Further  :  Yoa  will  observe  that  the  hifaUihiUty 
which  Dr.  Priestley  ascribes  to  the  apostolic  testimony 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  implies  that  every  his- 
torian is  infallible  in  similar  circumstances.  His  rea- 
soning supposes,  that  if  a  sensible  and  upright  historian 
have  the  proper  means  of  information,  and  pay  atten- 
tion to  his  subject,  he  is  infallible  :  but  is  this  a  fact  ? 
It  certainly  has  not  been  usual  for  us  to  consider  histo- 
rians in  this  light.  We  commonly  suppose,  that  amidst 
the  most  ample  means  of  information  and  the  greatest 
attention,  that  uninspired  men  (who  all  have  their  pre- 
judices and  imperfections)  are  ever  known  to  pay  to  a 
subject,  they  are  liable  to  mistakes.  Dr.  Priestley  has 
written  a  treatise  in  which  he  has  declared  for  the  doc- 
trine of  MateriaH&m  ;  and,  I  suppose,  he  would  be 
thought  to  have  paid  attention  to  it,  and  to  have  possess- 
ed the  means  of  information  as  far  as  the  nature  of  the 
subject  will  admit  :  yet,  I  imagine,  he  does  not  pretend 
in  that  article  to  infallibility. 

If  it  be  objected,  that  the  nature  of  the  subjects  is 
different,  and  that  the  apostles  were  capable  of  arriving 
to  a  greater  degree  of  certainty  concerning  the  person 
of  Christ,  than  Dr.  Priestley  could  obtain  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Materialism  ;  I  answer.  This  appears  to  me  to 
be  more  easily  asserted  than  proved.  Dr.  Priestley, 
indeed,  tells  us,  **  1  hey  were  as  capable  of  judging 
whether  he  was  a  wan,  as  whether  John  the  Baptist  was 
one.*'  This  is  very  true  ;  and  if  the  question  were. 
Whether  he  was  a  man  ;  it  might  be  to  the  purpose. 
But  at  this  time  of  day,  however  some  of  the  humble 
followers  of  Dr.  Priestley  may  amuse  themselves  in 
circulating  pamphlets,  proving  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a 
man,  and  that  with  a  view  to  convert  the  Trinitarians  ; 
yet  he  himself  cannot  be  insensible,  that  a  Materialist 
might  with  just  as  much   propriety  gravely  go  about 


5^08  VENERATION    FOR  [lET.    12. 

to  prove  that  men  have  material  bodies.*  Supposing 
Christ  to  have  been  merely  a  man,  this  was  a  matter 
that  could  not  be  visible  to  the  eyes  of  the  apostles. 
How  could  they  judge  by  his  exterior  appearance 
whether  he  was  merely  a  man,  or  both  God  and  man  ? 
The  august  personages  that  appeared  to  Abraham,  to 
Lot,  and  to  Jacob,  are  called  men  ;  nor  was  there  any- 
thing that  we  know  of,  in  their  exterior  appearance, 
different  from  other  men  ;  yet  it  does  not  follow  from 
hence  that  they  were  merely  human.  God,  in  the 
above  instances,  assumed  the  appearance  of  a  man  ; 
and  how  could  the  disciples  be  certain  that  all  this 
might  not  be  preparatory  to  his  becoming  really  incar- 
nate ?  It  is  true,  our  Lord  might  have  told  them  that 
he  was  merely  a  man,  and,  in  that  case,  they  might 
have  been  said  to  be  certain  of  it ;  but  if  so,  it  was  ei- 
ther in  some  private  instructions,  or  else  in  the  words 
which  they  have  recorded  in  their  writings.  We  can- 
not say  it  was  impossible  for  the  apostles  to  mistake 
respecting  the  person  of  Christ,  owing  to  their  private 
instructions;  because  that  would  be  building  upon  a 
foundation  of  which  we  are  confessedly  ignorant:  nei- 
ther can  we  affirm  it  on  account  of  any  of  those  words 
cf  Christ  to  his  disciples  which  are  recorded:  for  we 
have  those  words  as  well  as  they  ;  and  it  might  as  well 
be  said  of  us,  as  of  them,  that  "  it  is  impossible  for  us 

•  When  Socinian  writers  have  produced  a  list  of  texts,  which 
prove  the  proper  humanity  of  Christ,  they  seem  to  think  their 
work  is  done.  Our  writers  reply  ;  We  never  questioned  his 
humanity.  If  you  attempt  to  prove  any  thing",  prove  to  us  that 
he  was-7nere(y  human — Here  our  opponents,  feeling  themselves 
pinched,  it  shoiild  seem,  for  want  of  evidence,  have  been  known 
to  lose  their  temper.  It  is  on  this  occasion  that  Mr  Lindsey 
js.  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  abusing  and  insulwig  his  oppo- 
nents, instead  of  answering"  their  arguments.  Cxitechist,  Eiic^uiry 
vi.  quoted  towards  the  Utter  end  of  Let.  viii. 


5.ET.    12.]  THE    SCaiPTURES-  20^ 

to  be  under  any  mistake  upon  the  subject."  We 
might  as  well,  therefore,  allow  what  Dr.  Priestley  says 
to  be  infallible  on  the  question,  whether  men  have 
souls,  or  not,  as  what  the  apotles  say  (if  we  give  up 
their  inspiration)  on  the  question,  whether  Christ  was 
divine  or  not;  for  the  one  is  as  much  an  object  of  the 
senses  as  the  other. 

I  cannot  conceive  of  any  foundation  for  the  above 
assertion,  unless  it  be  upon  the  snpposition  of  a  union 
of  the  divine  and  human  natures  being  in  itself  impoS'* 
sible.  Then,  indeed,  if  we  suppose  the  apostles  knew 
it  to  be  so,  by  knowing  him  to  be  a  7«a«,  they  must 
have  known  him  to  be  a  mere  man.  But  if  a  union 
of  the  divine  and  human  natures  be  in  itself  impossible^ 
that  impossibility  might  as  well  appear  to  Dr.  Priestley 
as  to  the  apostles,  if  they  were  uninspired  ;  and  he 
might  as  well  maintain  the  infallibility  of  his  own 
notions,   relative   to  the  person  of  Christ,  as  of  theirs. 

In  fine  :  Let  Dr.  Priestley  view  the  subject  in  what 
light  he  may,  if  he  deny  the  divine  inspiration  of  the 
apostles,  he  will  never  be  able  to  maintain  their  in- 
fallibility on  any  ground  but  what  would  equally 
infer  his  own. 

When  Mr.  Burn  charged  Dr.  Priestley  with  de- 
nying the  infallibility  of  the  apostolic  testimony,  he 
principally  founds  his  charge  on  what  the  Doctor  had 
written  in  a  miscellaneous  work  called.  The  Theological 
Repository :  in  which  he  maintained,  that  **  some 
texts  of  the  Old  Testament  had  been  improperly 
quoted  by  writers  in  the  New  ;"  who,  it  seems,  were 
sometimes  **  misled  by  Jewish  prejudices,"*  Mr, 
Burn  inferred,  that  if  they  were  misled  in  their  ap- 
plication of  one  text,  they  were  liable  to  the  same 
thing  in  others  ;  and  that,  if  so,  we  could  have  a* 
S  2 
•  Letters  i.  ii,  to  Mr,  Burn, 


^10  VENERATION    FOR  [lET,    12» 

security  whatever  for  their  proper  application  of  any 
passage,  or  of  any  thing  like  infaUihUity  attending 
their  testimony.  One  would  think  this  is  not  the 
most  inconclusive  mode  of  reasoning  that  ever  was 
adopted  :  and  how  does  Dr.  Priestley  refute  it  ?  He 
replies,  *«  It  does  not  follow,  because  I  suppose  the 
apostles  to  have  been  fallible  in  some  things,  that  they 
were  therefore  fallible  in  all/'  He  contends  that  he 
always  conside  ^ed  them  as  infallible,  in  ivhat  respects 
the  person  of  Christ ;  as  a  proof  of  which,  he  alleges  his 
always  having  '' appealed  to  their  testimony,  as  being 
willing  to  be  decided  by  it."  And  yet,  we  generally 
suppose  a  single  failure  proves  a  writer  fallible,  as 
really  as  a  thousand  ;  and,  as  to  his  appealing  to  their 
testimony,  and  being  willing  to  be  decided  by  it,  we 
generally  appeal  to  the  best  evidence  we  can  obtain, 
and  must  be  decided  by  it.  But  this  does  not  prove 
that  we  consider  that  evidence  as  infallible.  Dr. 
Priestley  has  appealed  to  the  Fathers  :  yet  he  will 
hardly  pretend  that  their  testimony  is  infallible  ;  or, 
that  they  were  incapable  of  contradicting  either 
themselves,  or  one  another,  even  in  those  matters 
concerning  which  the  appeal  is^  made.  If  he  will, 
however,  he  must  suppose  them  to  have  diifered  very 
widely  from  writers  of  a  later  date.  Where  is  the 
historian  who  has  written  upon  the  opinions  or  char- 
acters of  a  body  of  men,  even  of  those  of  his  own 
times,  but  who  is  liable  and  likely,  in  some  particulars, 
to  be  contradicted  by  other  historians  of  the  same 
period,  and  equally  respectable  ?* 

To  be  sure,  if  Dr.  Priestley  thinks  proper  to  de- 
clare, that  he  believes  the  apostles,  uninspired  as  they 

*  See  this  truth  more  fully  illustrated  in  a  Letier  of  Dr. 
Edward  Williams  to  Dr.  Priestley,  prefixed  to  his  Abridg- 
laent  of  Dr.  Owen  on  the  Hebrews. 


LET.    12.]  THE    SCRIPTURES.  211 

were,  to  have  been  infallible   when  they  applied  pas- 
sages of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  person  of  Christ ; 
and   that,     notwithstanding   their   being    fallible,    and 
misled    by   Jewish    prejudices   in   their    application  of 
passages  on  other  subjects,  nobody  has  a  right  to  say 
he  does  not.     Thus  much  may  be  said,  however,  that 
he   will   find  it  no   very  easy   task  to  prove  himself  in 
this  matter  a  rational  christian..      If  the  apostles  are 
to    be    considered   as   uninspired,     and    w^ere    actually 
misled   by    Jewish    prejudices  in    their   application    of 
some  Old  Testament  passages,   it  will  require  no  small 
degree  of  labour  to  convince  people  in  general  that  we 
can  have  any  security  for  their  not  being  so  in  others. 
Mr.  Burn,   with  a   view   to  illustrate  his  argument, 
supposed    an    example  ;    viz,    the    application    of    Ps. 
xlv.   6.  to   Christ,   in  Heb.  i.  8.      He   observes,   that 
according  to  the  foregoing  hypothesis,    "  there  is  no 
dependance    to   be  placed    upon    the  argument  ;    be- 
cause  the  apostle,    in  his  application  of  this  scripture 
to   the  Messiah,   was  misled  by  a  prejudice   common^ 
among  the  Jews,  respecting  this,  and  other  passages  in 
the   Old   Testament.'^      Mr.   Burn    does  not   mean  to 
say,  that  Dr.    Priestley  had  in   this  manner  actually 
rejected  the   argument  from    Heb.   i.    8  :    but    barely 
that,    according   to  his  hypothesis,     he   might  do    so  : 
He    preserves  the  principle  of    his  opponent's  objec- 
tion, as  he  himself  expresses  it  ;    but  does  not  mean 
to  assert   that   he   had   applied    that   principle  to  this 
particular  passage.     And  how    does  Dr.   Priestley  re- 
ply to  this  ?    Why,    by   alleging  that   he  had  not  ap- 
plied the  above   principle  to  the   passage  in  question  ; 
but  had   given   it  a  sense   which  allowed  the  propriety 
of  its  being  applied  to  Christ.     That  is,  he  had    not 
made  that  use  of  a  principle  which  might  be   made 
of  it,  and  which  no  one  asserted  he  had  made  of  it. 


212  VENERATION    FOR  [lET.    12* 

Dr.  Priestley  is,  doubtless,  possessed  of  great  abil- 
ities, and  has  had  large  experience  in  controversial 
writing  :  to  what  a  situation,  then,  must  he  have 
been  reduced,  to  have  recourse  to  such  an  answer 
as  the  above  I 

The  question  between  Mr.  Burn  and  Dr.  Priest- 
ley, if  I  understand  it,  is  not.  Whether  the  latter 
appealed  to  the  scriptures  for  the  truth  of  his  opin- 
ions ;  but.  Whether  his  supposing  the  sacred  writers 
in  some  cases  to  apply  scripture  improperly,  does 
not  render  that  appeal  inconsistent  ?  Not  whether  he 
had  allowed  the  propriety  of  the  apostle's  quoting 
the  sixth  verse  of  the  forty-fifth  Psalm,  and  applying 
♦it  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Hebrews  to  Christ  :  but, 
Whether  upon  the  principle  of  the  sacred  writers 
being  liable  to  make,  and  having  actually  made,  some 
improper  quotations,  he  might  not  have  disallowed  it  ? 
Not,  whether  the  apostles  did  actually  fail  in  this  or 
that  particular  subject  ;  but,  Whether,  if  they  failed 
in  some  instances,  they  were  not  liable  to  fail  in 
others  ;  and,  whether  any  dependance  could  be  placed 
on  their  decisions  ?  Not,  whether  the  apostles  tes- 
tified things  which  they  had  seen  and  heard  from  the 
beginning ;  but.  Whether  their  infallibility  can  be 
supported  merely  upon  that  ground,  without  sup- 
posing that  the  holy  Spirit  assisted  their  memories, 
guided  their  judgments,  and  superintended  their 
productions  ?  If  the  reader  of  that  controversy  keep 
the  above  points  in  view,  he  will  easily  perceive  the 
futility  of  a  great  many  of  Dr.  Priestley's  answers, 
notwithstanding  all  his  positivity  and  triumph,  and  his 
proceeding  to  admonish  Mr.  Burn  to  repentance. 

Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  Sixth  Letter  to  Mr.  Burn, 
denies  that  he  makes  the  reason  of  the  individual 
the  sole  umpire  in  matters  of  faith.     But  if  the  sa^ 


LET.    12.]  THE   SCRIPTURES.  213 

cred  writers  '*  in  some  things  which  they  advanced, 
were  fallible,  and  misled  by  prejudice ;"  what  de- 
pendence can  be  placed  upon  them  ?  Whether  the 
reason  of  the  individual  be  a  proper  umpire  in  matters 
of  faith,  or  not  ;  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  on  the 
foregoing  hypothesis,  can  make  no  such  pretence. 
Dr.  Priestley  may  allege,  that  we  must  distinguish 
between  those  things  to  which  the  apostles  had  not 
given  much  attention,  and  other  things  to  which  they 
had  ;  those  in  whichrthey  were  prejudiced,  and  other* 
in  which  they  were  unprejudiced  ;  those  concerning 
which  they  had  not  the  means  of  exact  information, 
and  others  of  a  different  description  :  but  can  he 
himself,  at  this  distance  of  time,  or  even  if  he  liad 
been  contemporary  with  them,  always  tell  what  those 
cases  are  ?  How,  in  many  instances  at  least,  can  he 
judge  with  any  certainty  of  the  degree  of  attention 
which  they  gave  to  things  ;  of  the  prejudiced,  or  un- 
prejudiced state  of  their  minds  ;  or,  of  the  means  of 
information  'which  they  possessed  ?  Or,  if  he  could 
decide  with  satisfaction  to  himself  on  these  matters. 
How  are  the  bulk  of  mankind  to  judge,  who  are  not 
possessed  of  his  powers  and  opportunities,  but  who  are 
equally  interested  in  the  affair  with  himself  ?  Are 
they  implicitly  to  rely  on  his  opinion  ;  or,  to  suppli- 
cate Heaven  for  a  new  revelation  to  point  out  the  de- 
fects and  errors  of  the  old  one?  In  short,  let  Dr. 
Priestley  profess  what  regard  he  may  for  the  scrip- 
tures, if  what  he  advances  be  {rue,  they  can  be  no 
proper  test  of  truth  ;  and  if  the  reason  of  the  indi- 
vidual be  not  the  sole  umpire  in  these  matters,  there 
can  be  no  umpire  at  all  ;  but  all  must  be  left  in' 
gloomy  doubt,  and  dreadful  uncertainty.* 

*  The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  foregoing'  remarks  on 
the  controversy  between  Mr.  Bum  and  Dr.  Priestley,  have 


214  VENERATION    FOR  [lET.    1^2, 

The  generality  of  Sociiiian  writers,  as  well  as  Dr, 
T^riestley,  write  degradiniJ^ly  of  our  onlv  rule  of  faith. 
The  scriptures  profess  to  he  profitable  for  doctrine  ; 
and  to  he  able  to  make  men  ivise  unto  salvation.  The 
testimony  of  the  Lord  is  said  to  he  sure,  inaking  wise 
the  simple  ;  and  those  who  made  it  their  study,  pro- 
fessed to  have  obtained  more  understanding  than  all 
their  teachers »  But  Mr.  Lindsey  considers  the 
scriptures  as  unadapted  to  promote  any  high  perfec- 
tion in  knowledge  ;  and  supposes  that  they  are  left  in 
obscurity,  with  design  to  promote  an  occasion  of 
charity,  candour,  and  forbearance.  Speaking  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  "  Surely  it  must  be 
owned  (he  says)  to  have  been  left  in  some  obscurity  in 
the  scriptures  themselves,  which  might  mislead  readers, 
full  of  heathen  prejudices,  (otherwise  so  many  men, 
wise  and  good,  would  not  have  differed,  and  still 
continue  to  differ,  concerning  it)  and  so  left,  it  should 
8eem,  on  purpose  to  whet  human  industry,  and  the 
spirit  of  inquiry  into  the  things  of  God,  to  give  scope 
for  the  exercise  of  men's  charity  and  mutual  forbear- 
ance of  one  another,  and  to  be  one  great  means  of 
cultivating  the  moral  dispositions  ;  which  is  plainly 
the  design  of  the  holy  Spirit  of  God  in  the  christian 
revelation,  and  not  any  high  perfection  in  knowledge 
which  so  few  can  attain."* 

On  this  extraordinary  passage,  one  might  inquire. 
First,  If  the  scriptures  have  left  the  subject  in  ob- 
scurity, why  might  not  the  mistake  of  those  who 
hold  the  divinity  of  Christ  (supposing  them  to  be 
mistaken)  have  been  accounted  for,  without  alleging, 
as  Mr,  Lindsey  elsewhere  does,  that,  '*  they  are  de- 
nothing  to  do  with  that  part  of  it  which  relates  to  the  Riots  at 
Birmingham,  but  merely  with  that  on  the  person  of  Christ, 
♦  Apol.  Ch.  II. 


LET.    i^.]  THE   SCRfPTURES.  215> 

termined,  at  all  events,  to  believe  Christ  to  be  a  dif- 
ferent Beinv,^  from  what  he  really  was — that  there  is  no 
reasoning  with  them — and  that  they  are  to  be  pitied, 
and  considered  as  being-  under  a  debility  of  mind,  in 
tbis  respect,  however  sensible  and  rational  in  others  ?"* 
If  wise  and  good  men  have  differed  upon  the  subject 
in  all  ages,  and  that  owing  to  the  obscurity  with 
which  it  is  enveloped  in  the  scriptures  themselves, 
why  this  abusive  and  insulting  language  ?  Is  it  any 
disgrace  to  a  person  not  to  see  that  clearly  in  the 
st^riptures,  which  is  not  clearly  there  to  be  seen  ? 

Secondly  :  If  the  scriptures  have  indeed  left  the 
subject  in  obscurity,  how  came  Mr.  Lindsey  to  be 
so  decided  upon  it  ?  The  **  high  perfection  of  knowl- 
edge'' which  he  possesses,  must  undoubtedly  have 
been  acquired  from  some  other  qitarter ;  seeing  it 
made  no  part  of  the  design  of  the  holy  Spirit,  in  the 
christian  revelation.  But,  if  so,  we  have  no  further 
dispute  with  him  ;  as,  in  what  respects  religion,  we 
do  not  aspire  to  be  wise  above  what  is  written* 

Thirdly  :  Let  it  be  considered,  whether  the  princi- 
ple on  which  Mr.  Lindsey  encourages  the  e^xercise  of 
charity  and  mutual  forbearance,  do  not  cast  a  heavy 
reflection  upon  the  character  of  God.  The  scriptures, 
in  what  relates  to  the  person  of  Christ,  (a  subject 
on  which  Dr.  Priestley  allows  the  writers  to  have 
heeii  itifa/lib/e J  are  left  obsure;  so  obscure,  as  to 
mislead  readers  full  of  heathen  prejudices  ;  nay,  and 
with  the  very  design  of  misleading  them.  God  him- 
self, it  seems,  designed  that  they  should  stumble 
on  in  ignorance,  error,  and  disagreement  ;  till  at 
last,  wearied  with  their  fate,  and  finding  themselves 
united  in  one  common  calamity,  they  might  become 
friends.     But    what  is    this    friendship  ?    Is  it  not  at 

»  Catechist.    Enquiry  VI. 


216  VENERATION    FOR  [LET.    1^. 

the  expense  of  him  who  is  supposed  to  have  spread 
their  way  with  snares  ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
with  misleading  obscurity  ?  Is  it  any  other  than  the 
friendship  of  the  world,  which  is  enmity  with  God  9 

In  perfect  harmony  with  Mr.  Lindsey,  is  the  lan- 
guage of  a  writer  in  the  Mont  hit/  Review,  "  The  na- 
ture and  design  of  the  scripture  (he  says)  is  not  to  set- 
tle disputed  theories,  nor  to  decide  upon  speculative 
controverted  questions,  even  in  religion  and  morality--' 
The  scriptures,  if  we  understand  any  thing  of  them,  are 
intended  not  so  much  to  make  us  wiser,  as  to  make  us 
better;  not  to  solve  the  doubts,  but  rather  to  make  us 
obey  the  dictates  of  our  consciences."*  The  holy 
scriptures  were  never  designed,  then,  to  be  a  rule  of 
faith  or  practice  ;  but  merely  a  stimulative.  In  mat- 
ters of  speculation,  (as  all  disputed  subjects  will  be 
termed,  whether  doctrinal  or  practical)  they  have  no 
authority,  it  seems,  to  decide  any  question.  What 
saith  the  scriptures  ?  therefore,  would  now  be  an  im- 
pertinent question.  You  are  to  find  out  what  is  truth, 
and  what  is  righteousness,  by  your  reason,  and  your 
conscience  :  and  when  you  have  obtained  a  systeii  of 
religion  and  morality  to  your  mind,  scripture  is  to  fur- 
nish you  with  motives  to  reduce  it  to  practice.  If  this 
be  true,  to  what  purpose  are  all  appeals  to  the  scriptures 
on  controverted  subjects  ;  and  why  do  Socinians  pre- 
tend to  appeal  to  them  ?  Why  do  they  not  honestly  ac- 
knowledge, that  they  did  not  learn  their  religion  from 
4hence,  and  therefore  refuse  to  have  it  tried  at  that  bar  ? 
This  would  save  much  labour.  To  what  purpose  do 
they  object  to  particular  passages  as  interpolations  or 
mistranslations,  or  the  like,  when  the  whole,  be  it  ever 
so  pure,  has  nothing  at  all  to  do  in  the  decision  of  our 

*  Rev.  of  Bishop  Horsley's  Sermon,  Mar.  1793.  vl.  x.  p.  33K 


LET.     12.]  THE   SCRIPTURES.  217 

controversies  ?  We  have  been  used  to  speak  ofconscience 
having  but  one  master,  even  Christ :  but  now,  it  seems, 
conscience  is  its  own  master,  and  Jesus  Christ  does  not 
pretend  to  dictate  to  it,  but  merely  to  assist  in  the  exe- 
cution of  its  decisions  ! 

Mr.  Belsham  carries  the  matter  still  further. 
This  gentleman,  not  satisfied,  it  seems,  with  disclaim- 
ing an  implicit  confidence  in  holy  scripture,  pretends 
to  find  author iti/  in  the  scriptures  thetnselves  for  so 
doing,  '*  The  Bereans  (he  says)  are  commended  for 
not  taking  the  word  even  of  an  apostle,  but  examining 
the  scriptures  for  themselves,  whether  the  doctrines 
which  they  heard  were  true,  and  whether  St.  Paul's 
reasoning  was  just,"*  I  do  not  recollect,  that  the 
Bereans  were  commended  Jbr  not  taking  the  word  of 
an  apostle;  but  for  not  rejecting  it  without  examina- 
tion, as  the  Jews  did  at  Thessalonica.  But,  granting 
it  were  otherwise,  their  situation  was  different  from 
ours.  They  had  not  then  had  an  opportunity  of 
obtaining  evidence  that  the  apostles  were  divinely 
inspired,  or  that  the  gospel  which  they  preached  was 
a  message  from  God.  This,  surely,  is  a  circumstance 
of  importance.  There  is  a  great  difference  be- 
tween their  entertaining  some  doubt  of  the  truth 
of  the  gospel,  till  they  had  fully  examined  its  evi- 
dences ;  and  our  still  continuing  to  doubt  of  its 
particular  doctrines  and  reasoninp-s,  even  thous^h  we 
allow  it  to  be  a  message  from  God. — To  this  may  be 
addeil,  that,  in  order  to  obtain  evidence,  the  Bereans 
searched  the  scriptures.  By  comparing  the  facts 
which  Paul  te&tified,  with  the  prophecies  which  went 
before  ;  and  the  doctrines  which  he  preached,  with 
T 
*  Serm.  on  Importance  of  Truth,  p.  c9. 


^18  VENERATION    FOR  [lET.    12. 

those  of  the  Old  Testament  ;  they  would  judge 
whether  his  message  was  from  God  or  not.  There 
is  a  great  difference  between  the  criterion  of  the  Be- 
reans,  and  that  of  the  Socinians,  The  scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  the  allowed  standard  of  the 
former  ;  and  they  employed  their  reason  to  find  out 
their  meaning,  and  their  agreement  with  New  Tes- 
tament facts  :  but  the  authority  and  agreement  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  will  not  satisfy  the 
latter  ;  unless  what  they  contain  agree  also  with  their 
pre- conceived  notions  of  what  is  fit  and  reasonable* 
The  one  tried,  what,  for  ought  they  at  that  time  knew, 
were  mere  private  reasonings,  by  the  scriptures  ;  but 
the  other  try  the  scriptures  by  their  own  private 
reasonings. — Finally  :  If  proposing  a  doctrine  for  ex- 
amination, prove  the  proposer  liable  to  false  or  unjust 
reasonings  it  will  follow,  that  the  reasoning  of  Christ 
oiight  be  false  or  unjust,  seeing  he  appealed  to  the 
scriptures,  as  well  ais  his  apostles,  and  commanded  hia 
hearers  to  search  them.  It  will  also  follow,  tliat  all 
the  great ^c^^  of  Christianity,  as  well  as  the  reasonings 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  were  liable  to  be  detected 
of  falsehood  ;  for  these  were  as  constantly  submitted 
to  examination  as  the  other.  These  things,  said  they, 
were  not  done  in  a  corner*  Nay,  it  must  follow,  th^it 
God  himself  is  liable  to  l>e  iii  a  wrong  cause,  seeing 
he  frequently  appeals  to  men's  judgment  and  con- 
sciences. And  noiVy  O  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem^  and 
men  of  Judah,  judge,  I  pray  you,  between  me  arul 
my  vineyard.  The  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  men 
of  Judah,  were  exhorted  and  even  entreated,  it  may  be 
said,  not  to  take  matters  upon  trust  ;  but  to  exam- 
ine for  themselves,  whether  the  conduct  of  Jehovah 
was  just,  or  whether  any  thing  ought  to  have  been 
done  for  his  vineyard,  that  was  not  done ! 


LET.    12.]  THE    SCRlPTURESr  219 

But,  far  as  our  Eni^lish  Socinians  have  gone  m 
these  things,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  exceeded,  nar 
hardly  to  have  equalled,  those  of  the  same  denomi- 
nation in  other  countries.  These  appear  to  have 
made  great  advances,  indeed,  towards  infidelity,  Mr, 
Blackwall  makes  mention  of  two,  whose  language 
conveys  an  idea  of  uncommon  disrespect  to  the  sa- 
cred writings.  George  Engedin,  speaking  of  the 
v^ritings  of  John,  says,  **  If  a  concise,  abrupt  ob- 
scurity, inconsistent  with  itself,  and  made  up  of  al- 
legories, is  to  be  called  sublimity  of  speech,  I  own 
John  to  be  sublime  :  for  there  is  scarce  one  discourse 
of  Christ  which  is  not  altogether  allegorical,  and  very 
hard  to  be  understood."  Gagneius,  another  writer 
of  the  same  spirit,  says,  ''  I  shall  not  a  little  glory, 
if  I  shall  be  found  to  give  some  light  to  Pa?^/'^  dark- 
ness ;  a  darkness,  as  some  think,  industriously  affect- 
ed." — **  Let  any  of  the  followers  of  these  worthy 
interpreters  of  the  gospel,  and  champions  of  Chris- 
tianity, (adds  Mr.  Blackwall,  by  way  of  reflection) 
speak  worse  if  they  can,  of  the  ambiguous  oracles 
of  the  father  of  lies.  These  fair-dealing  gentlemcD 
first  disguise  the  sacred  writers,  and  turn  them  into 
a  harsh  allegory  ; — and  then  charge  them  with  that 
obscurity  and  inconsistency  which  is  plainly  con- 
sequent upon  that  sense,  which  their  interpretations 
force  upon  them.  They  outrage  the  divine  writers 
in  a  double  capacity  :  first,  they  debase  their  sense 
as  theologues  aid  commentators,  and  then  carp  at,  and 
vilify  their  language  as  grammarians  and  critics.'** 

Steinbart,  Semler,  and  other  foreign  Socin- 
ians, of  later  times,  write  in  a  similar  strain.  The 
former,  speaking  of  the  narrations  of  facts  contained 
in    the    New    Testament,    says,    "  These    narrations, 

♦  Sacred  Classics,  Pt.  IL  Ch.  V. 


220  YENERATION    FOR  [lET.    1«. 

true  or  false,  are  only  suited  for  ignorant,  unculti- 
vated minds,  who  cannot  enter  into  the  evidence  of 
natural  religion.'*  The  same  writer  adds,  "  Moses, 
according  to  the  chddish  conceptions  of  the  Jews  in 
his  days,    paints  God  as  agitated    by  violent  affections, 

partial  to  one  people,    and   hating  all  other  nations." 

The  latter^  in  a  Note  on  -2  Per.  i.  2,  Tlit-  prophecy 
came  not  in  old  time  b./  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men 
of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
says,  "  Peter  speaks  there  accorditig  to  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Jews;"  and,  that  *«  the  prophets  may  have 
delivered  the  offspring  of  their  own  brains  as  divine 
revelations.''* 

Soeinian  writers  sometimes  profess  great  respect  te 
the  holy  scriptures  ;  and  most,  if  not  all  of  them, 
would  have  it  thought  that  they  consider  their  tes- 
timony as  being  in  their  favour.  But,  if  so,  why 
all  these  pains  to  depreciate  them  ?  We  know  who 
they  are  that  not  only  undermine  their  general  credit, 
but  are  obliged  on  almost  every  occasion  to  have 
recourse  to  interpolation,  or  mistranslation  ;  who  are^ 
driven  to  disown  the  apostolic  7 easoniftgs  n^  tx  proyier 
test  of  religious  sentiment,  and  to  hold  them  as  the 
mere  private  opinions  of  men,  no  way  decisive  as  to 
what  is  truth.  But  is  it  usual  in  any  cause  for  per- 
sons to  endeavour  to  set  aside  those  witnesses,  and  to 
invalidate  that  testimony,  which  they  consider,  at 
the  same  time,  as  being  in  their  favour  ?  This  is  a 
question  which  it  does  liot  require  much  critical  skill 
to  decide. 

When  Soeinian  writers  have  mangled  and  altered 
the  translation  to  their  own  minds,  informing  us, 
that  such    a    term    7nai/    be   rendered    so,   and    such   a 

*  Dr.  Erskinc's  Sketches  and  Hints  of  Cliurch  History,  No. 
Ill,  p.  95,  71. 


LET.    12.3  THE   SCRIPTURES*  221 

passage  should  be  pointed  so — and  so  on — they  seem 
to  exjject  that  their  opponents  should  quote  the  scrip- 
tures accordingly  ;  and,  if  they  do  not,  are  very  lib- 
eral in  insinuating  that  their  design  is  to  impose  up- 
on the  vulgar.  But  though  it  be  admitted,  that  every 
translation  must  needs  have  its  imperfections,  and 
that  those  imperfections  ought  to  be  corrected  by 
fair  and  impartial  criticism  :  yet,  \*here  alterations- 
are  made  by  those  who  have  an  end  to  answer  by 
them,  they  ought  always  to  be  suspected,  and  will 
be  so  by  thinking  and  impartial  people* 

If  we  must  quote  particular  passages  of  scripture^ 
after  the  manner  in  which  our  adversaries  translate 
them,  we  must  also  avoid  quoting  all  those  which 
they  object  to  as  interpolations.  Nor  shall  we  stop 
here  :  we  must,  on  certain  occasions,  leave  out  whole 
chapters,  if  not  whole  books.  We  must  never  refer 
to  the  reasonings  of  the  apostles,  but  consider  that 
they  were  subject  to  be  misled  by  Jewish  prejudices  j 
nor  even  to  historical  facts,  unless  we  can  satisfy 
ourselves  that  the  historians,  independent  of  their  be* 
ing  divinely  inspired,  were  possessed  of  sufficient 
means  of  information.  In  short,  if  we  must  never 
quote  scripture,  except  according  to  the  rules  im- 
posed upon  us  by  Socinian  writers,  we  must  not  quote 
it  at  all  :  not,  at  least,  till  they  shall  have  indulged 
us  with  a  Bible  of  their  own,  that  shall  leave  out  every 
thing  on  which  we  are  to  pl&ce  na  dependance,.  A. 
publication  of  this  sort  would  doubtless  be  an  accep- 
table present  to  the  christian  warld  ;.  would  be  cmn- 
prised  in>  a  very  small  compass ;  and  be  of  iutinvte 
service  in  cutting  »hort  a  great  deal  of  unnecessary^ 
controversy,  inta  which,  for  want  of  such  a  crlt€ric*«^, 
we  shall  always  be  in  danger  of  wandering, 
T  2 


222  VENERATION    FOR,    &C,  [lET.    12. 

Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  Animadversions  on  Mr,  Gih* 
hon's  History^  takes  notice  oF  what  is  implied  in  that 
gentleman's  endeavouring  to  lessen  the  number  and 
validity  of  the  early  martyrdoms  ;  namely,  a  con- 
sciousness that  they  afforded  an  argument  against 
him.  "  Mr.  Gibbon  (says  the  Doctor,)  appears  to 
have  been  sufficiently  sensible  of  the  value  of  such  a 
testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel  history,  as  is 
furnished  by  the  early  martyrdoms,  and,  therefore,  he 
takes  great  pains  to  diminish  their  number  ;  and^ 
when  the  facts  cannot  be  denied,  he  endeavours  to 
exhibit  them  in  the  most  unfavourable  light."*  Judge, 
brethren,  whether  this  picture  does  not  bear  too  near 
a  resemblance  to  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Priestley,  and 
other  Socinian   writers,  respecting  the  holy   scriptures. 

I  have  heard  of  persons,  who,  when  engaging  in  a 
law-suit,  and  fearing  lest  certain  individuals  should 
appear  in  evidence  against  them,  have  so  contrived 
matters  as  to  sue  the  witnesses  ;  and  so,  by  making 
them  parties  in  the  contest,  have  disqualified  them 
for  bearing  testimony.  Arid  what  else  is  the  conduct 
of  Dr.  Priestley,  with  respect  to  those  passages  in 
the  New  Testament  which  speak  of  Christ  as  God  ? 
We  read  there,  that  The  Word^  who  was  made Jiesh,  and 
dwelt  among  us,  was  God.  Thomas  exclaimed,  Mi/ 
Lord,  and  my  God — Of  whom  as  concerning  the  Jieshy 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever* 
Unto  the  Son  he  saith,  thu  throne,  O  God,  is  forever 
and  ever — Feed  the  Church  of  God  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood — Hereby  perceive  we 
the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  w^.f 
But  Dr.  Priestley  asserts,  that  "  in  no  sense  what- 
ever, not  even   in  the  lowest  of  all,   is  Christ  so  much 

•  Letters  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Pt.  II.  p   217.         f  J^^"  '^    ^'  ^^• 
XX.  28.    Rom.  ix.  5.    Heb,  i.  8.    Acts.  xx.  28.    1  John  iii.  16. 


LET.  13.]  ON    HAPPINESS.  223 

as  called  God  in  all  the  New  Testament."*  The 
method  taken  by  this  writer  to  enable  him  to  hazard 
sueh  an  assertion,  without  being  subject  to  the 
charge  of  downright  falsehood,  could  be  no  other 
than  that  of  laying  a  kind  of  arrest  upon  the  fore- 
going passages,  with  others,  as  being  either  interpo- 
lations, or  mistranslations,  or  something  that  shall 
answer  the  same  end;  and  by  these  means  imposing 
silence  upon  them,  as  to  the  subject  in  dispute.  To 
be  sure,  we  may  go  on,  killing  one  scripture  testimo- 
ny, and  stoning  another,  till  at  length  it  will  become 
an  easy  thing  to  assert,  that  there  is  not  an  instance 
in  all  the  New  Testament,  in  which  our  o[)inions  are 
confronted.  But  to  what  does  it  all  amount  ?  When 
we  are  told,  that  "  Christ  is  never  so  much  as  called 
God  in  all  the  New  Testament  ;*'  the  question  is, 
Whether  we  are  to  understand  it  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  it  was  left  by  the  sacred  writers  ;  or,  as 
corrected,  amended,  curtailed,  and  interpreted,  by 
a  set  of  controvertists,  with  a  view  to  make  ?t  accord 
with  a  favourite  system  ? 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  XIII. 

ON    THK    TENDENCY   OF  THE  DIFFERENT  SYSTEMS,    TO 
PROMOTE  HAPPINESS  Oil  CHEERFULNESS  OF  MIND. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

NOTHING  is  more  common  with  our  opf)onents, 
than  to  represent  the  Calvinistic  system  as  gloomy  ; 
as  leading  to  melancholy  and  misery.  Our  ideas  of 
God,  of  sin,  and  of  future  punishment,  they  say,  must 
necessarily  depress  our  minds.      Dr.  Priestley,  as  we 

•  Letter  I.  to  Mr.  Burn. 


2j^4  on  happin£Ss«  [let.  la, 

have  seen  already,  reckons  Unitarians  ^*  more  cheer- 
fuT'  than  Trinitarians.  JNor  is  this  all.  li  has  even 
been  asserted,  that  the  tendency  of  our  principles  is  to 
promote  "  moral  turpitude,  melancholy,  and  despair  ; 
and  that  the  suicide  practised  among  the  middling, 
and  lower  ranks,  is  frequently  to  be  traced  to  this 
doctrine."*  This  is  certainly  carrying  matters  to  a 
great  height.  It  might  be  worth  while,  however, 
for  those  who  advance  such  things  as  these,  to  make 
good  what  they  affirm,  if  they  be  able.  Till  that  be 
done,  candour  itself  must  consider  these  bold  asser- 
tions as  the  mere  effusions  of  malignity  and  slander. 

It  is  some  consolation,  however,  that  what  is  ob- 
jected to  us  by  Socinians,  is  objected  to  religion  it-' 
self  by  unbelievers.  Lord  Shaftesbury  observes, 
'*  There  is  a  melancholy  which  accompanies  all  en- 
thusiasm ;"  which,  from  his  pen,  is  only  another 
name  for  Christianity.  To  the  same  purpose,  Mr.  Hume 
asserts,  "  There  is  a  gloom  and  melancholy  remark-' 
able  in  all  devout  people."  If  these  writers  had  form- 
ed a  comparison  between  deists  and  atheists  on  the 
one  i^ide,  and  devout  christians  on  the  other,  they 
would  have  said  of  the  former,  as  Df.  Priestley  says 
of  Unitarians,  **  They  are  more  cheerful,  and  more 
happy." 

It  is  granted,  that  the  system  we  adopt,  has  noth- 
ing in  it  adapted  to  promote  the  happiness  of  those 
who  persist  in  enmity  against  God,  and  in  a  rejec- 
tion of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  only  way  of 
salvation.  While  men  are  at  war  with  God,  we  do 
not  know  of  any  evangelical  promise  that  is  calcu- 
lated to  make  them  happy.  This,  perhaps,  with 
some  may  be  a  considerable  ground  of  objection  to 
eur  views  of  things  ;    but  then,  such   objection   must 

•  See  Crit.  Rev.  for  $ept,  ir8r,on  Memoirs  of  Gabriel  D' Anville. 


LET.  13.]  ON    HAPPINESS.  2til^ 

equally  stand  against  the  scriptures  tliemselves;  since 
their  language   to   ungodly    men  is.  Be  afflicted^   and^ 
moiirny   and  weep.      All    the  prophets,    and    ministers 
of  the  word  were,  in  effect,  commanded  to  sat/  to  the 
wicked.   It   shall   be   ill    wita    him.     This,   with. 
us,   is  one  considerable   objection  against  the  doctrine  . 
of  the  final  salvation   of  all  men  ;    a  doctrine  much 
circulated  of  late,  and  generally   embraced  by   Socin- 
ian  writers.      Supposing  it   were   a   truth,    it  must  be 
of  such  a   kind   as   is   adapted   to  comfort  mankind  in 
sin.     It  is    good    news  :    but  it  is   to  the   impenitent, 
and   unbelieving,   even   those   who  live  and  die  such  /.^ 
which   is  a    characteristic  so  singular,   that   I  question 
whether   any   thing  can   be   found    in  the  Bible  to  re- 
semble it.     If  our  views  of  things   be  but  adapted    to 
encourage  sinners  to  return  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ  5 
if  they  afford  strong  consolation  to  those  who  have  fled 
for   refuge   to  lay  hold  of  the   hope  set  before  them  ; 
and    if   sobriety,     righteousness,    and     godliness,    here 
meet   with  the    most    powerful    motives  ;    this     is    all 
that  the  scriptures  themselves  pro{)ose. 

Our  system,  it  is  granted,  is  not  adapted  to  pro- 
mote that  kind  of  cheerfulness  and  happiness  to  which 
men  in  general  are  greatly  addicted  ;  namely,  that 
which  consists  in  self-deceit,  and  levity  of  spirit.  There 
is  a  kind  of  cheerfulness  like  that  of  a  tradesman* 
who  avoids  looking  into  his  accounts  lest  they  should 
disturb  his  peace,  and  render  him  unhappy.  This, 
indeed,  is  the  cheerfulness  of  a  great  part  of  man- 
kind ;  who  shun  the  light,  lest  it  should  disturb  their 
repose,  and  interrupt  their  present  pursuits.  They 
try  to  persuade  themselves  that  they  shall  have  peace, 
thoujyh  they  add  drunkenness  to  thirst  ;  and  there 
are  not  wanting  preachers  who  afford  them  assistance 
in  the  dangerous  delusion.     The  doctrines  of  huma» 


226  ON    HAPPINESS.  [let.   13. 

depravity,  of  sinners  being  under  the  curse  of  the 
law,  and  of  their  exposedness  to  everlasting  punish- 
ment, are  tho^e  which  are  supposed  to  lead  us  to 
melancholy  ;  and  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  the 
cpposites  to  these  doctrines  are  at  the  bottom  of  the 
cheerfulness  of  which  our  opponents  boast.  Instead 
of  considering  mankind  as  lost  sinners,  exposed  to 
everlasting  destruction  ;  they  love  to  represent  them 
simply  as  creatures,  as  the  children  of  God,  and  to 
suppose  that,  having  in  general  more  virtue  than 
▼ice,  they  have  nothing  to  fear  ;  or  if,  in  a  few  in- 
stances, it  be  otherwise,  still  they  have  no  reason  to 
be  afraid  of  end/ess  punishment.  These  things,  to  be 
sure,  make  peonle  cheerful  ;  but  it  is  with  the  cheer- 
fulness of  a  wicked  man.  It  is  just  as  wicked  men 
would  have  it.  It  is  no  wonder  tfiat  persons  of  *'  no 
religion,  and  who  lean  to  a  life  of  dissipation,  should 
be  the  first  to  embrace  these  principles."  They  are 
Buch  as  must  needs  suit  them  :  especially  if  we  add, 
what  Dr.  Priestley  inculcates  in  his  Sermon  on  the 
death  of  Mr.  Robinson,  That  it  is  not  necessary  to 
dwell  in  our  thoughts  upon  death  and  futurity ^  lest 
it  should  interrupt  ike  business  of  life,  and  cause  us 
to  live  in  perpetual  bondage,*  We  hope  it  is  no  dis- 
paragement of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  that  it  dis- 
claims the  promoting  of  all  such  cheerfulness  as  this. 
That  cheerfulness  which  is  damped  by  thoughts  of 
death  and  futurity,  is,  at  best,  mere  natural  joy.  It 
has  no  virtue  in  it  :  nay,  in  many  cases,  it  is  posi- 
tively vicious,  and  founded  in  self-deception.  It  is 
nothing  better  than  the  laughter  of  a  fool.  It  may 
blaze  awhile,  in  the  bosoms  of  the  dissipated  and  the 
secure  ;  but,    if  the  sinner  be  once  awakened  to  just 

*  This  is  the  substance  of  what  he  advances,  from  p.  7  to  12. 


LET.    13.]  eN    HAPPINESS.  S27 

reflection,  it  will  expire  like  the  crackling  of  thorns 
under  a  pot. 

There  is  also  a  kind  of  happiness  which  some  per- 
sons enjoy,  in  treating  the  most  serious  and  impor- 
tant subjects  with  levity;  making  them  the  subjects 
of  jest,  and  trying  their  skill  in  disputing  upon  them  ; 
which  is  frequently  called  pleasantry,  good-nature, 
and  the  like,  A  cheerfulness  of  this  kind,  in  Oliver 
Cromwell,  is  praised  by  Mr.  Lindsey,  and  represented 
as  an  excellency  "  of  which  the  gloomy  bigot  is  ut- 
terly incapable."*  Pleasantry,  on  some  occasions,  and 
to  a  certain  degree,  is  natural,  and  allowable  :  but 
if  sporting  with  sacred  things  must  goby  that  name, 
let  me  be  called  *'  a  gloomy  bigot,''  rather  than  in- 
dulge  it. 

Once  more:  It  is  allowed,  that  the  system  we 
embrace  has  a  tendency  on  various  occasions  to  pro- 
mote sorrow  of  heart.  Our  notions  of  the  evil  of  &ia 
exceed  those  of  our  opponents.  While  they  reject 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  by  the  cross  of  Christ, 
they  have  aot  that  glass  in  which  to  discern  its  ma- 
lignity, which  others  have.  There  are  times  in  which 
we  remember  Calvary,  and  weep  on  account  ot"  that 
for  which  our  Redeemer  died.  But  so  far  are  we 
from  considering  this  as  our  infelicity,  that,  for 
weeping  in  this  manner  once,  we  could  wish  to  do 
so  a  thousand  times.  There  is  a  pleasure  in  the  very 
pains  of  godly  sorrow^  of  which  the  light-minded  spec- 
Ailatist  is  utterly  incapable*  The  t«ears  of  her  that 
wept,  and  washed  her  Saviour's  feet,  afforded  abun- 
dantly greater  satisfaction  than  the  unfeeling  calm 
<5f  the  pharisee,  who  stood  by  making  his  ill-natured 
reflections  upon  her  conduct, 

•  Apol.  Chap.  H* 


228  ON   HAPPINESS.  [lET.    13. 

If  our  views  of  things  have  no  tendency  to .  pro- 
mote solid,  holy,  heavenly  joy  ;  joy  that  fits  true 
christians  for  the  proper  business  of  this  world,  and 
the  blessedness  of  that  which  is  to  come  ;  we  will  ac- 
knowledge it  a  strong  presumption  against  them.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  they  can  be  proved  to  possess  such  a 
tendency,  and  that  in  a  much  greater  degree  than  the 
opposite  scheme,  it  will  be  a  considerable  argument  in 
their  favour.     Let  us  examine  this  matter  a  little  closer. 

The  utmost  happiness  which  the  peculiar  principles 
of  Socinians  are  adapted  to  promote,  consists  \xt  calmness 
ofmhidy  like  that  of  a  philosopher  contemplating  the 
works  of  creation.  The  friends  of  that  scheme  conceive 
of  man  as  a  good  kind  of  Being,  and  suppose  there  is  a 
greater  proportion  of  virtue  in  the  world  than  vice,  and 
that  things  upon  the  whole  are  getting  better  still,  and 
so  tending  to  happiness.  They  suppose  there  is  little 
or  no  breach  between  God  and  men  ;  nothing  but  what 
may  be  made  up  by  repentance,  a  repentance  without 
much  pain  of  mind,*  and  without  any  atoning  Saviour  ; 
that  God,  being  the  benevolent  Father  of  his  rational 
offspring,  will  not  be  strict  to  mark%iniquity  :  and  that, 
as  his  benevolence  is  infinite,  all  will  be  well  at  last  :  As 
with  the  good,  so  with  the  sinner  :  with  him  that  swear* 
eth,  as  with  him  thatfeareth  an  oath.  This  makes  theui 
serene  ;  and  enables  them  to  pursue  the  studies  of  phi- 
losophy, or  the  avocations  of  life,  with  composure. 
This  appears  to  be  the  summit  of  their  happiness  ;  and 
must  be  so  of  all  others,  if  they  wish  to  escape  their 
censure.  For  if  any  one  pretends  to  happiness  of  a 
superior  kind,  they  will  instantly  reproach  him  as  an 
enthusiast.  A  writer  in  the  Monthly  Review,  ob- 
serves,    concerning     the    late     President    Edwards  ; 

•  Such  a  repentance  is  pleaded  for  by  Mr.  Jardine  in  his 
Letters  to  Mr.  Bogue. 


LKT.    13.]  ON    HAPPINESS.  22^ 

'•  From  the  account  given  of  him,  he  appears  to  have 
been  a  very  reputable,  good,  and  pious  man,  according 
to  his  views  and  feelings  in  religious  matters;  which 
those  of  different  sentiments,  and  cooler  sensations, 
will  not  fail  to  consider  as  all  wild  ecstasy ^  rapturCy 
and  enthusiasm,'^* 

The  tendency  of  any  system  to  promote  calmness^ 
is  nothing  at  all  in  its  favour,  any  further  than  such 
calmness  >can  be  proved  to  be  virtuous.  But  this 
must  be> determined  by  the  situation  in  which  we 
stand.  nVe  ouglit  to  be  affected  according  to  our 
situation.  If,  indeed,  there  be  no  breach  between  God 
and  men  ;  if  all  be  right  on  our  part,  as  will  as  his, 
and  just  as  it  should  be  ;  then  it  becomes  us  to  be 
calm  and  thankful  :  but  if  it  be  otherwise,  it  becomes 
us  to  feel  accordingly.  If  we  have  offended  God, 
we  ought  to  bewail  our  transgressions,  and  be  sorry 
for  our  sin  ;  and  if  the  offence  be  great,  we  ought 
to  be  deeply  affected  with  it.  It  would  be  thought 
very  improper  for  a  convict,  a  little  before  the  time* 
appointed  for  his  execution,  instead  of  cherishing 
proper  reflections  on  the  magnitude  of  his  offence, 
and  suing  for  the  mercy  of  his  offended  Sovereign,  to 
be  eoi ployed  in  speculating  upon  his  benevolence, 
till  he  has  really  worked  himself  into  a  persuasion, 
that  no  serious  apprehensions  were  to  be  entertained,  ' 
either  concerning  himself,  or  any  of  his  fellow  con- 
victs. Such  a  person  might  enjoy  a  much  greater 
degree  of  calmness  than  his  companions  :  but  consid- 
erate people  would  neither  admire  his  mode  of  think- 
ing, nor  envy  his  imaginary''  felicity. 

Calmness  and  serenity  of  mind  may  arise  from  igno- 
rance of  ourselves,  and  from  the  want  of  a  principle  of 
true  religion.     While   Paul  was   ignorant   of  his   true 
U 

•  Rev.  Gf  Edwarda'  Hist,  of  Redemption,Vol.  LXXX.  Art.  68 


200  ON    HAPPINESS.  [lET.   13, 

character,  he  was  calm  and  easj^,  or  as  he  expresses  it, 
alive  without  the  law;  but  when  the  connnandment 
came,  in  its  spirituality  and  authority,  sin  revived,  and 
he  died.  The  Pharisee  who  was  whole  in  his  own  esteem, 
and  needed  no  physician,  was  abundantly  more  calm 
than  the  Publican,  who  smote  upon  his  breast,  and 
cried,  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  !  While  any  man 
is  destitute  of  a  principle  of  true  religion,  the  strong 
man  armed  keepeth  the  house,  and  the  goods  are  in 
'peace;  and  while  things  are  thus,  he  will  be  a  stranger 
to  all  those  holy  mournings  which  abound*  in  the 
Psalms  of  David,  and  to  those  inward  conflicts  be- 
tween jiesh  and  spirit  described  in  the  writings  of  Paul. 
And,  knowing  nothing  of  such  things  himself,  he  will 
be  apt  to  think  meanly  of  those  who  do  ;  to  deride 
them  as  enthusiasts,  to  reproach  them  with  gloominess, 
and  to  boast  of  his  own  insensibility,  under  the  names 
of  calmness  and  cheerfulness. 

Supposing  the  calmness  and  cheerfulness  of  mind  of 
which  our  opponents  boast,  to  be  on  the  side  of  virtue  ; 
still  it  is  a  cold  and  insipid  kind  of  happiness,  compar- 
ed with  that  which  is  produced  by  the  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation through  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ.  One  great 
source  of  happiness  is  contrast.  Dr.  Priestley  has 
proved,  what  indeed  is  evident  from  universal  experi- 
ence, **  That  the  recollection  of  past  troubles,  after  a 
certain  interval,  becomes  highly  pleasurable,  and  is  a 
pleasure  of  a  very  durable  kind.''*  On  this  principle 
he  undertakes  to  prove  the  infinite  benevolence  of  the 
Deity,  even  in  his  so  ordering  things,  that  a  mixture  of 
pain  and  sorrow  shall  fall  to  the  lot  of  man.  On  the 
same  principle  may  be  proved,  if  1  mistake  not,  the 
superiority  of  the  Calvinistic  system  to  that  of  the  So- 
cinians,  in  point  of  promoting  happiness.     The  doc- 

•  Let.  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Pt.  1.  Let.  \1. 


LET.    13.]  ON    HAPPINESS.  ^32 

t lines  of  the  former,  supposing  them  to  be  true,  are 
affecting.  It  is  affecting  to  think,  that  man,  originally 
pure,  should  have  fallen  from  the  height  of  righteous- 
ness and  honour,  to  the  depth  of  apostasy  and  infamy 
— that  he  is  now  an  enemy  to  God,  and  actually  lies 
under  his  awful  and  just  displeasure,  exposed  to  ever- 
lasting misery — that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  a  ransom 
is  found  to  deliver  him  from  going  down  to  the  pit — 
that  God  so  loved  the  world,  as  to  give  his  only-begot- 
ten Son  %o  become  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
lifel-that  the  issue  of  Christ's  death  is  not  left  at  an 
(Uncertainty,  nor  the  invitations  of  his  gospel  subject  to 
universal  rejection,  but  an  effectual  provision  is  made 
in  the  great  plan  of  redemption,  that  he  shall  see  of 
the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  be  satisfied — that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  given  to  renew  and  sanctify  a  people  for  him- 
self— that  they  who  v^ere  under  condemnation  and 
wrath,  being  justified  by  faith  in  the  righteousness  of 
Jesus,  have  peace  with  God — that  aliens  and  outcasts 
are  become  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  Lord  God 
Almighty — that  everlasting  arms  are  now  beneath 
them,  and  everlasting  glory  is  before  them* — These 
sentiments,  I  say,  supposing  them  to  be  true,  are  un- 
doubtedly affecting.  The  Socinian  system,  supposing 
it  were  true,  compared  with  this,  is  cold,  uninteresting, 
and  insipid. 

We  lead  of  joy  and  peace  in  believing — of  jot/  uri' 
speahabhy  and  full  of  glory.  Those  who  adopt  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin, 
and  of  their  own  lost  condition  as  sinners,  are  prepared 
to  imbibe  the  joy  of  the  gospel,  supposing  it  to  exhibit 
a  great  salvation,  through  the  atonement  of  a  great  Sa- 
viour, to  which  others,  of  opposite  sentiments,  must 
of  necessity  he.  strangers^     The  Pharisees,  who  thought 


.239  ON    HAPPINESS.  [let.   1^. 

well  of  their  character  and  condition,  like  the  elder  son 
in  the  parable,  instead  of  rejoicing  at  the  good  news  of 
ealvaiion  to  the  chief  of  sinners,  were  disgusted  at  it  r 
and  this  will  ever  be  the  case  with  all  who,  like  the 
Pharisees,  are  ichole  in  their  own  eyes,  so  whole  as  to 
think  they  need  no  physician. 

The  votaries  of  the  Socinian  scheme  do  not,  in  o-ener- 
al,  appear  to  feel  their  hearts  much  interested  by  it. 
Voltaire  could  say  in  his  time,  ««  At  least  hitherto,  only 
a  very  small  number  of  those  called  Unita/-ians  have 
held  any  religious  meetings.*'*  And  though  Dr. 
JPriestley,  by  his  great  zeal,  has  endeavoured  to  invig- 
orate and  reform  the  party  :  yet  he  admits  tlie  justice 
of  a  common  complaint  among  them,  that  "  their  so- 
cieties do  not  flourish,  their  members  have  but  a  slight 
attachment  to  them,  and  easily  desert  them,  though  it 
*s  never  imagined  (he  adds)  that  they  desert  their  prin- 
ciples."f  All  this  the  Doctor  accounts  for  by  allowing, 
that  iheir  principles  are  not  of  that  importance  which 
we  suppose  ours  to  he  ;  and  that  "  many  of  those  who 
judge  so  truly  concerning  the  particular  tenets  of  relig- 
ion, have  attained  to  that  cool,  unbviissed  temper  of 
mind,  in  consequence  of  becoming  more  indifferent  to 
religion  in  general,  and  to  all  the  modes  and  doctrines 
of  it."  Through  mdifferencey  it  seems,  they  come  in  ; 
through  indifference  they  go  out ;  and  are  very  indiffer" 
ent  while  there.  Yet,  it  is  said,  they  still  retain  their 
principles  ;  and,  1  suppose,  are  very  cheerful,  and  very 
happy.  Happiness,  theirs,  consequentl}^,  which  does 
not  interest  the  heart,  any  more  than  reform  the  life. 

Although  the  aforementioned  writer  in  the  Monthly 
Review  insinuates,  that  President  Edwards's  religious 
feelings  were   **  all    wild    ecstasy,   rapture  aid  enthusi- 

*  Additions  to  Gen.  Hist.  Art.  England,  under  Charles  \\. 
f  Discourses  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  94. 


LET.   13.]  &^    HAPPINESS.  233 

asm  ;"  yet  headds^  ^'  We  cannot  question  the  sinceri- 
ty of  Mr.  Edwards,  who,  however  he  may  possibly  have 
imposed  on  himself  by  the  warmth  of  his  imagination, 
was,  perhaps,  rather  to  be  envied,  than  derided  for  his 
ardours  and  ecstasies,  which,  in  themselves,  were  at 
least  innocent ;  in  which  he,  no  doubt,  found  much 
delisht,  and  from  which  no  creature  could  receive  the 
least  hurt/'  I  thank  you,  sir,  for  this  concession.  It 
will,  at  least,  serve  to  shew,  that  the  sentiments  and 
feelings  which  you  deem  wild  and  enthusiastical,  may, 
by  your  own  acknowledgment,  be  the  most  adapted  to 
promote  human  happiness  ;  and  that  is  all  for  which  I 
at  present  contend.  President  Edwards,  however,  was 
far  from  being  a  person  of  that  warm  imagination,  which 
this  writer  would  insinuate.  No  man  could  be  a  great- 
er enemy  to  real  enthusiasm.  Under  the  most  virulent 
oppositions,  and  the  heaviest  trials,  he  possessed  a  great 
share  of  coolness  of  judgment,  as  well  as  of  calmness 
and  serenity  of  mind  ;  as  great,  and  perhaps  greatei  > 
than  any  one  whom  this  gentleman  can  refer  us  to, 
among  those  whom  he  calls  men  of  cool  sensations.  But 
he  felt  deeply  in  religion  ;  and  in  such  feelings,  our  ad- 
versaries themselves  being  judges,  he  was  to  be  "  envi- 
ed, and  not  derided." 

Why  should  religion  be  the  only  subject  in  ivhich 
we  must  not  be  allowed  to  feel?  Men  are  praised  for 
the  exercise  of  ardour,  and  even  of  ecstasy,  in  poetry, 
in  polices,  and  in  the  endearing  connections  of  social 
life;  but,  in  religion,  we  must  either  go  on  with  cool 
indifference,  or  be  branded  as  enthusiasts.  Is  it  because 
religion  is  of  less  importance  than  other  things  ?  Is 
eternal  salvation  of  less  consequence  than  the  political 
or  domestic  accommodations  of  time?  It  is  treated  by 
multitudes  as  if  it  were;  and  the  spirit  of  Socinianism, 
so  far  as  it  operates,  tends  to  keep  them  in  countenance, 
U  2 


234  ON    HAPPINESS.  [let.    13. 

Is  it  not  a  pity  but  those  who  call  themselves  rational 
christians,  would  act  more  rationally  ?  Nothing  can  be 
more  irrational,  as  well  as  injurious,  than  to  encourage 
an  ardour  of  mind  after  the  trifles  of  a  moment,  and  to 
discourage  it  when  pursuing  objects  of  infinite  mag-i 
nitude. 

'^  Passion  is  reason,  transport  temper  here  I" 

The  Socinian  system  proposes  to  exclude  mi/steiy 
from  religion,  or,  *'  things  in  their  own  nature  incom- 
prehensible,"* But  such  a  scheme  not  only  renders 
religion  the  only  thing  in  nature  void  of  mystery,  but 
divests  it  of  a  property  essential  to  the  continued  com- 
munication of  happiness  to  an  immortal  creature. 
Our  passions  are  more  affected  by  objects  which  surpass 
our  comprehension,  than  by  those  which  we  fully  know. 
It  is  thus  with  respect  to  unhappiness.  An  unknown 
itiisery  is  much  more  dreadful  than  one  that  is  fully 
known.  Suspense  adds  to  distress.  If,  with  regard 
to  transient  sufferings,  we  know  the  worst,  the  worst  is 
comm.only  over  :  and  hence  our  troubles  are  frequently 
greater  when  feared,  than  when  actually  felt.  It  is  the 
same  with  respect  to  happiness.  That  happiness  which 
is  felt  in  the  pursuit  of  science,  abates  in  the  full  pos- 
session of  the  object.  When  once  a  matter  is  fully 
known,  we  cease  to  take  that  pleasure  in  it  as  at  first, 
and  long  for  something  new.  It  is  the  same  in  all 
other  kinds  of  happinesF,  The  mind  loves  to  swim  in 
deep  waters  :  if  it  touch  the  bottom  it  feels  disgust. 
If  the  best  were  once  fully  known,  the  best  would 
thence  be  over.  Some  of  the  noblest  passions  in  Paul 
were  excited  by  objects  incomprehensible  :  O  the  depth 
of  the  riches,  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knoivledge  of 
God  i    How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments^  and  his 

*  Def.  of  Unit,  for  l^SG,  p.  67, 


LET.   13.]  ON    HAPPINESS.  235 

ways  past  finding  out  ! — Great  is  the  mi/stery  of  god^ 
iiness  :  God  teas  manifest  in  the  fleshy  justified  in  the 
spirit i  seen  qf  angels,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received 
up  into  glory  !  Now,  if  things  be  so,  it  is  easy  to  see, 
that,  to  divest  religion  of  every  thing  incomprehensible, 
is  to  divest  it  of  what  is  essential  to  human  happiness. 
And  no  wonder  :  for  it  is  nothing  less  than  to  divest  it 
of  God  ! 

The  Socinian  scheme,  by  rejecting  the  Deity  and 
atonement  of  Christ,  rejects  the  very  essence  of  that 
which  both  supports  and  transports  a  christian's  heart. 
It  was  acknowledged  by  Mr.  Hume,  that,  "  The  good^ 
the  great,  the  sublime,  and  the  ravishing  were  to  be 
found  evidently  in  the  principles  of  theism."  To  this 
Dr.  Priestley  very  justly  replies:  **  If  so,  I  need  not 
say  that  there  must  be  something  mean,  abject,  and 
debasing  in  the  principles  of  atheism."*  But  let  it  be 
considered,  whether  this  observation  be  not  equally  ap- 
plicable to  the  subject  in  hand.  Our  opponents,  it  is 
true,  may  hold  sentiments  which  are  great  and  trans- 
porting. Such  are  their  views  of  the  works  of  God  in 
creation  :  but  so  are  those  of  deists.  Neither  are  these 
the  sentiments  in  which  they  differ  from  us.  Is  the 
Socinian  system,  as  distinguished  from  ours,  adapted  to 
raise  and  transport  the  heart  ?  This  is  the  question. 
Let  us  select  only  one  topic  for  an  example.  Has  any 
thing,  or  can  any  thing  be  written,  on  the  scheme  of 
our  adversaries,  upon  the  death  of  Christ  equal  to  the 
following  lines  ? 

"  Religion  !  thou  the  soul  of  happiness  ; 

And  groaning  Cahary  of  thee  !   there  shine 

The  noblest  truths  ;  there  strongest  motives  sting  ? 

There  sacred  violence  assaults  the  soul 

My  theme  !  my  inspiration  !  and  my  crown  ! 

*  Letters  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Pt.  I.  pref.  p.  x. 


^36  ON    HAPPINESS.  [let.   13. 

My  strength  In  age  !  my  rise  in  low  estate  ! 

My  soul's  ambition,  pleasure,  wealth  ! — my  world  ! 

My  light  in  darkness  !  and  my  life  in  death  ! 

My  boast  through  time  !  bliss  througli  eternity  ! 

Eternity  too  short  to  speak  thy  praise  1 

Or  fathom  thy  profound  of  love  to  man  I 

To  man,  of  men  the  meanest,  ev*n  to  me  ; 

My  sacrifice  !  my  God  !  what  things  are  these  !'* 

Again  : 

**  Pardon  for.  infinite  offence  !  and  pardon, 
Through  means  that  speak  its  value  infinite  ! 
A  pardon  bought  with  blood  !  with  blood  divine  ! 
With  blood  divine  of  him  I  made  my  foe  ! 
Persisted  to  provoke  !  though  woo'd,  and  aw'd, 
Bless'd,  and  chastis'd,  a  flagrant  rebel  still  ! 
A  rebel  'midst  the  thunders  of  his  throne  ! 
Nor  I  alone,  a  rebel  universe  ! 
My  species  up  in  arms  !  not  one  exempt  ! 
Yet  for  the  foulest  of  the  foul  he  dies  ! 
Bound  every  heart  !  and  every  bosom  burn  ! 
Oh  what  a  scale  of  miracles  is  here  !— 
Praise  !  flow  forever  (if  astonishment 
Will  give  thee  leave)  my  praise  !  forever  flow  ; 
Praise  ardent,  cordial,  constant,  to  high  Heaven 
More  fragrant  than  Arabia  sacrific'd  ; 
And  all  her  spicy  mountains  in  a  flame  !" 

Night   Thoughts,  No.  iv. 

There  is  a  rich,  great,  and  ravishing  quality  in  the 
foregoing  sentiments,  which  no  other  theone  can  inspire. 
Had  the  writer  been  a  Socinian,  and  attempted  to 
write  upon  the  death  of  Christ,  he  might,  by  the 
strength  of  his  mind  and  the  fire  of  his  genius,  have 
contributed  a  little  to  raise  his  subject  ;  but  here  his 
subject  raises  him  above  himself. 

The  dignity  of  Christ,  together  with  his  glorious 
undertaking,  was,  as  we  have  seen  in   Letter   XI,   a 


LET.   13.]  ON    HAPPINESS.  23? 

source  of  joy  and  love  to  the  primitive  christians.  It 
was  their  daHing  theme,  and  that  which  raised  them 
above  themselves.  Now,  according  to  our  system, 
christians,  may  still  rejoice  in  the  same  manner  ;  and 
ffive  vent  to  their  souls,  and  to  all  that  is  within 
them,  and  that  without  fear  of  going  beyond  the 
words  of  truth  and  soberness  ;  or  of  bordering,  or 
seeming  to  border,  upon  idolatry.  But  upon  the 
principles  of  our  opponents,  the  sacred  writers  must 
liave  dealt  largely  in  hyperbole;  audit  must  be  our 
business,  instead  of  entering  into  their  spirit,  to  sit 
down  with  '*  cool  sensations,''  criticise  their  words, 
and  explain  away   their  apparent   meaning. 

Brethren  !  1  appeal  to  your  own  hearts,  as  men 
who  have  been  brought  to  consider  yourselves  as  the 
scriptures  represent  you  ;  Is  there  any  thing  in  that 
preaching  which  leaves  out  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
by  an  atoning  sacrifice,  that  can  atford  you  any  re- 
lief? Is  it  not  like  the  priest  and  Levite  who  passed 
by  on  the  other  side  ?  Is  not  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment by  the  blood  of  Christ,  like  the  oil  and  wine 
of  the  good  Samaritan  ?  Under  all  the  pressures  of 
life,  whether  from  inward  conflicts,  or  outward  troub- 
les, is  not  this  your  grand  support  ?  What  but  an 
advocate  iciih  the  Father^   one  who  is  the  propitiation 

for  our  sins,  could  prevent  you,  when  you  have  sinned 
against    God,     from     sinking   into   despondency,    and 

.encouri^ge  you  to  sue  afresh  for  mercy  ?  What  else 
could  so  divest  affliction  of  its  bitterness;  death  of 
its  sting  ;  or  the  grave  of  its  gloomy  aspect  ?  In  fine, 
what  else  could  enable  you  to  contemplate  a  future 
judgment  with  composure  ?  What  hope  could  you 
entertain  of  being  justified  at  that  day  upon  any 
other  footing  than  this.  It  is  CJirist  that  died  9 


238  ON    HAPPINESS.  [l>ET.   13, 

I  am  aware  I  shall  be  told,  that  this  is  appealing 
to  the  passions,  and  to  the  passions  of  enthusiasts. 
To  which  it  may  be  replied  ;  in  a  question  which  relates 
to  happiness,  the  heart  is  the  best  criterion  :  and  if 
it  be  enthusiasm  to  think  and  feel  concerning  our- 
selves as  the  scriptures  represent  us,  and  concerniHg 
Christ  as  he  is  there  exhibited,  let  me  live  and  die 
an  enthusiast.  So  far  from  being  ashamed  to  appeal 
to  such  characters,  in  my  opinion  they  are  the  only 
competent  judges.  Men  of  mere  speculation  play 
with  doctrines  :  it  is  the  plain  and  serious  christian 
that  knows  most  of  their  real  tendency.  In  a  ques- 
tion, therefore,  which  concerns  their  happy  or  unhappy 
influence,  his  judgment  is  of  the  greatest  importance. 

Dr.  Priestley  allows,  that  **  the  doctrine  of  a  gen- 
eral, and  a  most  particular  providence,  is  so  leading 
a  feature  in  every  scheme  of  predestination,  it  brings 
Ood  so  much  into  every  thing, — that  an  habitual  and 
animated  devotion  is  the  result,'**  This  witness  is 
true  :  nor  is  this  all.  The  same  principle,  taken  in 
its  connection  with  various  others,  equally  provides 
for  a  serene  and  joyful  satisfaction  in  all  the  events 
of  time.  All  the  vicissitudes  of  nations  ;  all  the  fu- 
rious oppositions  to  the  church  of  Christ  ;  all  the 
tefforts  to  overturn  the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  or  blot 
out  the  spirit  of  Christianity  from  the  earth,  we  con- 
sider as  permitted  for  wise  and  holy  ends.  And, 
being  satisfied  that  they  make  a  part  of  God's  eternal 
plan,  we  are  not  inordinately  anxious  about  them. 
We  can  assure  our  opponents,  that  when  we  hear 
them  boast  of  their  increasing  numbers,  as  also  pro- 
fessed unbelievers  of  theirs,  it  gives  us  no  other  pain 
than  that  which  arises  from  good  will  to  men.  We 
have  no  doubt  that   these  things  are  wisely  permitted  ; 

*  Doctrine  of  Necessity,  p.  162. 


LET.    13.]  ON    HAPPINESS.  239^ 

that  they  are  a  fan  in  the  hand  of  Christ,  by  which 
he  will  thoroughly  purge  his  floor  ;  and  that  the  true 
gospel  of  Christ,  like  the  sun  in  the  heavens,  will 
finally  disperse  all  these  interposing  clouds.  We  are 
persuaded,  as  well  as  they,  that  things  upon  the  whole, 
whether  we  in  our  coiitracted  spheres  of  observation 
perceive  it  or  not,  are  tending  to  the  general  good  ; 
that  the  empire  of  truth  and  righteousness,  notwith- 
standing all  the  infidelity  and  iniquity  that  are  in 
the  world,  is  upon  the  increase;  that  it  must  increase 
more  and  more  ;  that  glorious  things  are  yet  to  be 
accomplished  in  ihe  church  of  God  ;  and  that  all 
which  we  have  hitherto  seen,  or  beard,  of  the  gospel 
dispensation,  is  but  as  the  first  fruits  of  an  abundant 
harvest. 

The  tendency  of  a  system  to  promote  present  hap- 
piness, may  be  estimated  by  the  degree  of  security 
which  accompanies  it.  The  obedience  and  sufi'erings 
of  Christ,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  system,  con- 
stitute the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  A 
good  moral  life,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  only  foun- 
dation on  which  our  opponents  profess  to  build  their 
hopes,*  Now,  supposing  our  principles  should  prove 
erroneous,  while  they  do  not  lead  us  to  neglect  good" 
works,  but  to  abound  in  them  from  love  to  God, 
and  with  a  regard  to  his  glory  ;  it  may  be  presumed, 
that  the  divine  Being  will  not  cast  us  off  to  eternity^ 
for  having  ascribed  too  much  to  him,  and  too  little 
to  ourselves.  But  if  the  principles  of  our  opponents 
should  be  found  erroneous,  and  the  foundation  on 
which  they  build  their  hopes,  should  at  last  give  way, 
the  issue  must  be  fatal  !  I  never  knew  a  person  in 
his  dying    moments  alarmed   for  the  consequences  of 

*  See  the  quotations   from   Dr.  Priestley,    Dr.  Harwood^  and 
Mrs.  Barbauld,  Let.  ix. 


240  ON    GRATITUDE.  [l.ET.    14. 

having  assumed  too  little  to  himself,  or  for  having 
ascribed  too  much  to  Christ ;  but  many  at  that  hour 
of  serious  reflection,  have  been  more  than  a  little 
apprehensive   of  danger  from  the  contrary. 

After  all,  it  is  allowed,  that  there  is  a  considerable 
number  of  persons  amongst  us,  who  are  under  too 
great  a  degree  of  mental  dejection  ;  but  though  the 
nnraber  of  such  persons,  taken  in  the  aggregate,  be 
considerable,  yet  there  are  not  enough  of  them  to  ren- 
der it  any  thing  like  a  general  case.  And  as  to 
those  who  are  so,  they  are  almost  all  of  them,  such, 
either  from  constitution,  from  the  want  of  a  mature 
judgment  to  distinguish  just  causes  of  sorrow,  or  from 
a  sinful  neglect  of  their  duties  and  their  advantages. 
Those  who  enter  most  deeply  into  our  views  of  things, 
provided  their  conduct  be  consistent,  and  tliere  be 
no  particular  propensity  to  gloominess  in  their  con- 
stitution, are  among    the  happiest  people  in  the  world. 

I  am,   &c. 


LETTER  XIV. 

A  COMPARISON  OF  MOTIVES  EXHIBITED  BY  THE  TWO 
SYSTEMS,  TO  GRATITUDE,  OBEDIENCE,  AND  HEAV- 
EN LY-Ml  NDEDN  ESd. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

THE  subject  of  this  letter  has  been  occasionally 
noticed  already  ;.  but  there  are  a  few  things  in  reserve 
that  require  your  attention.  As  men  are  allowed  on 
both  sides  to  be  influenced  by  motives^  which  ever  of 
the  systems  it  is  that  excels  in  this  particular,  that 
of  course  must  be  the  system  which  has  the  greatest 
tendency   to   promoie  a   holy    life. 


LET.    14.]  ON    GRATITUDE,  241 

Oue  very  important  motive  with  which  the  scrip- 
tures acquaint  us,  is,  the  love  of  God  manifested 
In  the  gift  of  his  Son.  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  ;  that  ivhosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life — Herein  is  love ;  not  that  ive  loved  God,  but  that 
he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation  for 
our  sins — God  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in 
that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us — 
He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him 
vp  for  us  all — Behold,  if  God  so  loved  us,  we  ought 
also  to  love  one  another.*  The  benevolence  of  God 
to  men  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  con- 
sisting, not  in  his  overlooking  their  frailties,  nor  so 
much  even  in  his  forgiving  their  sins,  as  in  giving  his 
only-begotten  Son  to  die  for  them.  Herein  was  love^ 
and  herein  was  found  the  grand  motive  to  grateful 
obedience.  There  is  no  necessity,  indeed,  for  estab- 
lishing this  point,  since  Dr.  Priestley  has  fully  ac- 
knowled^ed  it.  He  allows  that  *'  the  love  of  God  in 
giving  his  Son  to  die  for  us,  is  the  consideration  on 
which  the  scriptures  always  lay  the  greatest  stress  as  a 
motive  to  gratitude  and  obedience. "f  As  this  is  a 
matter  of  fact,  then,  allowed  on  both  sides,  it  may  be 
worth  whilfe  to  make  some  inquiry  into  the  reason 
of  it ;  or  ivhy  it  is  that  so  great  a  stress  should  be 
laid  in  the  scriptures  upon  this  motive.  To  say  noth- 
ing of  the  strong  presumption  which  this  acknowledg- 
ment affords  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
suffice  it  at  present  to  observe,  that  in  all  other  cases, 
an  obligation  to  gratitude  is  supposed  to  bear  some 
proportion  to  the  magnitude  or  value  of  the  gift.  But 
W 

♦  John  iii.  16.     1  John  iv    10,  11.     Rom.  v.  8.  and  viii.  32. 
t  Def.  of  Unit,  for  1/86.  p.   102. 


242  ON    GRATITUDE,  [lET.    14. 

if  it  be  allowed  in  this  instance,  it  will  follow,  that 
the  system  which  gives  us  the  most  exalted  views  of 
the  dignity  of  Christ,  must  include  the  strongest 
motives  to  obedience  and  gratitude. 

If  there  be  any  meaning  in  the  words,  the  phrase- 
ology of  John  iii.  16,  God  so  loved  the  ivorld,  that  he 
gave  HIS  ONLY-BEGOTTEN  SoN, — conveys  an  idea  of 
the  highest  worth  in  the  object  bestowed.  So  great 
was  this  gift,  that  the  love  of  God  in  the  bestow ment  of 
it  is  considered  as  inexpr£ssible  and  inestimable.  We 
are  not  told  hoiv  much  he  loved  the  world,  but  that  he 
feo  loved  it,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son. 
If  Jesus  Christ  be  of  more  worth  than  the  world  for 
which  he  was  given,  then  was  the  language  of  the  sacred 
writer  fit  and  proper  ;  and  then  was  the  gift  of  him  tru- 
ly great,  and  worthy  of  being  made  *'  the  consideration 
upon  which  the  scriptures  should  lay  the  greatest  stress, 
as  a  motive  to  gratitude  and  obedience."  But  if  he  be 
merely  a  man  like  ourselves,  and  was  given  only  to  in- 
struct us  by  his  doctrine  and  example,  there  is  nothing 
so  great  in  the  gift  of  him,  nothing  that  will  justify  the 
language  of  the  sacred  writers  from  the  appearance  of 
bombast  ;  nothing  that  should  render  it  a  motive  to 
gratitude  and  obedience  upon  which  the  greatest  stress 
should  be  laid. 

Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Price,  observes, 
that  **  In  passing  from  Trinitarianism  to  high  Arianism, 
from  this  to  your  low  Arianism,  and  from  this  to 
Socinianism,  even  of  the  lowest  kind,  in  which  Christ 
is  considered  as  a  mere  man,  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  and  naturally  as  fallible  and  peccable  as  Mo- 
ses or  any  prophet,  there  are  sufficient  sources  of 
gratitude  and  devotion,  I  myself,  (continues  Dr. 
Priestley)  have  gone  through  all  those  changes,  and 
I  think   I  may  assure   you   that  you  have  nothing  to 


LET.     14.]  ON    GRATITUDE.  ^i^ 

apprehend  from  any  part  of  the  progress.  In  every 
stage  of  it  you  have  that  coiisideration  on  which  the 
scriptures  always  lay  the  greatest  stress,  as  a  motive 
to  gratitude  and  obedience,  viz.  the  love  of  God,  the 
Almighty  Parent,  in  giving  his  Son  to  die  for  us. 
And  whether  tliis  Son  be  man,  angel,  or  of  a  super- 
angelic  nature,  every  thing  that  he  has  done  is  to  be 
referred  to  the  love  of  God,  the  original  author  of  all, 
and  to  him  all  our  gratitude  and  obedience  is  ulti- 
mately due."* 

Dr.  Priestley^  it  seems,  wishes  to  have  it  thought, 
that,  seeing  Trinitarians,  Arians,  and  Socinians  agree, 
in  considering  the  gift  of  Christ  as  an  expression  of 
the  love  of  God  ;  therefore,  their  different  systems  are 
upon  a  level,  as  to  the  grand  motive  to  gratitude  and 
obedience.  As  if  it  made  no  difference  at  all,  whether 
that  gift  was  small  or  great  ;  whether  it  was  a  man, 
or  an  angel,  or  one  whom  men  and  angels  are  bound 
to  adore  ;  whether  it  was  to  die,  as  other  martyrs  did, 
to  set  us  an  example  of  perseverance  ;  or,  by  laying 
down  his  life  as  an  atoning  sacrifice,  to  deliver  •us 
from  the  wrath  to  come.  He  might  as  well  suppose 
the  gift  of  one  talent  to  be  equal  to  that  of  ten  thou- 
sand, and  that  it  would  induce  an  equal  return  of 
gratitude  ;  or  that  the  gift  of  Moses,  or  any  other 
prophet,  afforded  an  equal  motive  to  love  and  obe- 
dience, as  the  gift  of  Christ. 

If  in  every  stage  of  religious  principle,  whether 
Trinitarian,  Arian,  or  Socinian,  by  admitting  that 
one  general  principle.  The  love  of  God  in  giving  his 
Son  to  die  for  us,  we  have  the  same  motive  to  grat- 
itude and  obedience,  and  that  in  the  same  de- 
gree ;  it  must  be  because  the  greatness  or  small- 
iiess    of    the    gift    is  a  matter   of    no    consideration, 

•  Def.  of  Unit,  for  1786,  pp.  101,  102. 


244  ON    GRATITUDE.  [lET.    14. 

and  has  no  tendency  to  render  a  motive  stronger  or 
weaker.  But  this  is  not  only  repugnant  to  the  plain- 
est dictates  of  reason,  as  hath  been  already  observed  ; 
but  also  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  According  to 
this,  He  that  hath  much  forgiven,  loveth  much  ;  and 
he  that  hath  little  forgiven^  loveth  little.  From  hence 
it  appears,  that  the  system  which  affords  the  most 
extensive  views  of  the  evil  of  sin,  the  depth  of  human 
apostasy,  and  the  magnitude  of  redemption,  will  in- 
duce us  to  love  the  most,  or  produce  in  us  the  greatest 
degree  of  gratitude  and  obedience. 

It  is  to  no  purpose  to  say,  as  Dr.  Priestley  docs, 
*'  Every  thing  that  Christ  hath  done  is  to  be  referred  to 
the  love  ofGod,'^  For  be  it  so,  the  question  is,  if  his 
system  be  true.  What  hath  he  done  ;  and  what  is  there 
to  be  referred  to  the  love  of  God  ?  To  say  the  most, 
it  can  be  but  little.  If  Dr.  Priestley  be  right,  the 
breach  between  God  and  man  is  not  so  great  but  that 
our  repentance  and  obedience  are  of  themselves,  with- 
out any  atonement  whatever,  sufficient  to  heal  it. 
Christ,  therefore,  could  have  but  little  to  do.  But, 
the  less  he  had  to  do,  the  less  we  are  indebted  to  him, 
and  to  God  for  the  gift  of  him  :  and  in  proportion  as 
this  is  believed,  we  must  of  course  feel  less  gratitude, 
and  devotedness  of  soul  to  God. 

Another  important  motive  with  which  the  scriptures 
acquaint  us,  is,  the  love  of  Christ  in  coming  into 

THE    WORLD,    A^  D    LAYING    DOWN     HIS    LIFE   FOR  US. 

Let  this  mind  he  in  you  tvhich  ivas  also  in  Christ 
Jesus  :  ivho  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  :  but  made  himself  if  no 
reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant, 
and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men — For  ye  know  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  though  he  teas  rich, 
yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his 


LET.    14.]  ON    GRATITUDE.  ^ASk' 

poverty  might  be  made  rich — Forasmuch  as  the  children 
were  partakers  of  Jiesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  took 
part  of  the  same  ;  that  through  death  he  might  destroy 
him  that  had  thepoiver  ofdeathy  that  is  the  devil — Veri'* 
ly,  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels ,  but  the  seed 
of  Abraham — The  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us  :  be^ 
cause  we  thus  judge ,  that  if  one  died  for_  ally  then  were 
all  dead  ;    and  that  he  died  for  all,  that   they  who  live 
should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him 
who  died  for  them,   and  rose  again — Walk  in  love,  as 
Christ  also  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  himself  for  us, 
an  ojfering,  and  a  sacrifice  to  Cod  for  a  sweet  smelling 
savour — To  him  that  loved  us,  and  ivashed  us  from  our 
sins  in  his  own  blood,  be  glory  and  dominion  forever  and 
ever.     Amen.      Such  is  the  uniform  language  of  the 
New   Testament  concerning  the  love  of  Christ ;    and 
such  are  the  moral  purposes  to  which  it  is  applied.     It 
is  a  presumption  in  favour  of  our  system,  that  here  the 
above  motives  have  all  their  force  j  whereas,   in  the  sys- 
tem of  our  opponents,   they  have  scarcely  any  force  at 
all.     The  following  observations  may  render  this  sufl&- 
ciently  evident. 

We  consider  the  coming  of  Christ  into  the  world  as  a 
voluntary  undertaking.  His  taking  upon  him,  or  tak^ 
ing  hold,  not  of  the  nature  of  angels,  but  the  seed  of 
Abraham  ;  his  taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant^ 
and  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  that  from 
a  state  of  mind  which  is  held  up  for  our  example  ;  and 
his  becoming  poor,  though  previously  rich,  for  our 
sakes,  and  that  as  an  act  of  grace,  all  concur  to  estab-- 
lish  this  idea.  For  this  we  feel  our  hearts  bound  by 
every  consideration  that  love  unparalleled  can  in- 
spire, to  gratitude  and  obedience.  But  our  oppo» 
nents,  by  supposing  Christ  to  have  been  a  mere 
man,  and  to  have  had  no  existence  till  he  was 
W  2 


240  ON    GRATITUDE.  [lET,    14> 

born  of  Mary,  are  necessarily  driven  to  deny  that 
his  coming  into  the  vvorld  was  a  voluntary  act  of  his 
own  ;  and  consequently,  that  there  was  any  love  or 
grace  in  it.  Dr.  Priestley,  in  answer  to  Dr.  Price, 
contends  only  that  he  "came  into  the  world  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  command  of  the  Father,  and  not  in  conse- 
quence of  his  own  proposal."  But  the  idea  of  his  com- 
ing in  obedience  to  the  command  of  the  Father,  is  as 
inconsistent  with  the  Socinian  scheme,  as  his  coming 
in  consequence  of  his  own  proposal.  For  if  he  had 
no  existence  previous  to  his  being  born  of  Mary,  he 
could  do  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  It  would  be 
perfect  absurdity  to  speak  of  our  coming  into  the  world 
as  an  act  of  obedience  :  and  on  the  hypothesis  of  Dr. 
Priestley,  to  speak  of  the  coming  of  Christ  under  such 
an  idea,  must  be  equally  absurd,* 

We  consider  Christ's  coming  into  the  world,  as  an 
act  of  condescending  love ;  such,  indeed,  as  admits  of 
no  parallel.  The  riches  of  Deity,  and  the  poverty 
of  humanity  ;  the  Jbrfn  of  God,  and  the  form  of  a  ser-' 
vant,  afford  a  contrast  that  fills  our  souls  v?ith  grateful 
astonishment.  Dr.  Priestley,  in  the  last  mentioned 
performance,  acknowledges,  that,  "  The  Trinitarian 
doctrine  of  the  incarnation  is  calculated  forcibly  to  im- 
press the  mind  with  divine  condescension."  He  allows 
the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation,  as  held  by  the  Arians, 
to  have  such  a  tendency  in  a  degree  :  but  he  tells  Dr. 
Price,  who  pleaded  this  argument  against  Socinianism, 
that,  '*  The  Trinitarian  hypothesis  of  the  supreme  God 
becoming  man,  and  then  suffering  and  dying  for  us, 
would  no  doubt  impress  the  mind  more  forcibly  still."f 
This  is  one  allowed  source  of  gratitude  and  obedience, 
then,  to  which  the  scheme  of  our  adversaries  makes  no 
pretence,  and   for   which   it  can   supply    nothujg  ade- 

•  Def.  of  Unit,  for  1786,  p.  103.    f  Page  103. 


LET.     14.]  ON    GRATITUDE.  247 

quate.  But  Dr.  Priestley  thinks  to  cut  up  at  one 
stroke,  it  seems,  all  the  advantages  which  his  opponents 
might  hope  to  gain  from  these  concessions,  by  adding ; 
*'  With  what  unspeakable  reverence  and  devotion  do 
the  Catholics  eat  their  Maker  !"  That  a  kind  of  super- 
stitious devotion  may  be  promoted  by  falsehood,  is  ad- 
mitted :  such  was  the  voluntary  humility  of  those  who 
worshipped  angels.  But,  as  those  characters,  with  all 
their  pretended  humility,  were  vainly  puj^ed  up  with  a 
Jieshly  mind  ;  so,  all  that  appearance  of  reverence  and 
devotion  which  is  the  offspring  of  superstition,  will  be 
found  to  be  something  at  a  great  remove  from  piety  of 
devotedness  to  God.  The  superstitions  of  popery,  in- 
stead of  promoting  reverence  and  devotion,  have  been 
thought,  by  blinding  the  mind  and  encumbering  it  with 
other  things,  to  destroy  them.*  There  are  times  in^ 
which  Dr.  Priestley  himself  '*  cannot  conceive  of  any 
practical  use  being  made  of  transubstantiation  :"f  but 
now  it  is  put  on  a  level  with  a  doctrine  which,  it  is 
allowed,  "tends  forcibly  to  impress  the  mind  with 
divine  condescension." 

Once  more  :  We  believe  that  Christ,  in  laying 
down  his  life  for  us,  actually  died  as  our  substitute; 
endured  the  curse  of  the  divine  law,  that  we  might 
escape  it  ;  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  that  w€ 
might  be  delivered  from  the  wrath  to  come  ;  and  all  ' 
this,  while  we  were  yet  enemies.  This  is  a  consider- 
ation of  the  greatest  weight  :  and  if  we  have  any  jus- 
tice or  ingenuousness  about  us,  love  like  this  must 
constrain  us  to  live,  not  to  ourselves,  but  to  him  that 
died  for  us,  and  rose  attain  !  But,  according  to  our 
adversaries,    Christ   died.  Jor  us   in   no   higher    sense 

*  See  Mr.  Pobinson's  Sermon,  on  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  entitled. 

The  Christian   Doctrine  of  Ceremonies. 

t  Def.  of  Unit,  for  1786,  p.  33. 


248  ON    OBEDIENCE.  [lET.    14. 

than  a  common  martyr,  who  might  have  sacrificed 
his  hie  to  maintain  his  doctrine  ;  and  by  so  doing, 
have  set  an  example  for  the  good  of  others.  If  this 
be  all,  Why  should  not  we  be  as  much  indebted,  in 
point  of  gratitude,  to  Stephen,  or  Paul,  or  Peter, 
who  also  in  that  manner  died  for  us,  as  to  Jesus 
Christ  ?  And  why  is  there  not  the  same  reason  for 
their  death  being  proposed  as  a  motive  for  us  to 
live  to  them,  as  for  his,  that  we  might  live  to  him  ? 

But  there  is  another  motive  which  Dr.  Priestley 
represents  as  being  "  that  in  Christianity  vvhich  is 
most  favourable  to  virtue  ;  namely,  a  future  state  of 
retribution,  grounded  on  the  firm  belief  of  the  histori- 
cal facts  recorded  in  the  scriptures  ;  especially  in  the 
miracles,  the  death,  and  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
The  man  {he  adds)  who  believes  these  things  only, 
and  who,  together  with  this,  acknowledges  an  uni- 
versal providence,  ordering  all  events  ;  who  is  per- 
suaded that  our  very  hearts  are  constantly  open  to 
the  divine  inspection,  so  that  no  iniquity,  or  purpose 
of  it,  can  escape  his  observation,  will  not  be  a  bad 
man,  or  a  dangerous  member  of  society.'**  Dr. 
Priestley,  elsewhere,  as  we  have  seen,  acknowledges 
that  "  the  love  of  God  in  giving  his  Son  to  die  for  us, 
is  the  consideration  on  which  the  scriptures  ahoays 
lay  the  greatest  stress,  as  a  motive  to  gratitude  and 
obedience;"  and  yet  he  speaks  here,  of  "a  future 
state  of  retribution  as  being  that  in  Christianity  which 
is  most  favourable  to  virtue.'^  One  should  think,  that 
what  the  scriptures  always  lay  the  greatest  stress  upon,, 
should  be  that  in  Christianity  which  is  most  favourable 
to  virtue,  be  it  what  it  may.  But,  waving  this,  let 
it  be  considered  whether  the  Calvinistic  system  has 
not   the   advantage    even    upon    this    ground.      The 

*  Letter  V,  to  Mr.  Burn. 


LET.   14.]  ON  OBEDIENCE.  24^ 

doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  retribution,  is  a  ground 
possessed  by  Calvinists,  as  well  as  by  Socinians  ;  and, 
perhaps,  it  may  be  found  that  their  views  of  that 
subject,  and  others  connected  with  it,  are  more  fa- 
vourable to  virtue  and  a  holy  life,  than  those  of  their 
adversaries. 

A  motive  of  no  small  importance,  by^  which  we 
profess  to  be  influenced,  is,  the  thought  of  our  own 
approaching  dissolution.  Brethren,  if  you  embrace 
what  is  called  the  Calvinistic  view  of  things,  you 
consider  it  as  your  duty  and  interest  to  be  frequently 
conversing  with  mortulity.  You  find  such  thoughts 
have  a  tendency  to  moderate  your  attachments  to  the 
present  world  ;  to  preserve  you  from  being  inordinately 
elated  by  its  smiles,  or  dejected  by  its  frowns.  The 
consideration  of  the  time  being  short,  teaches  you  to 
hold  all  things  with  a  loose  hand  ;  to  weep  as  though 
you  wept  not,  and  to  rejoice  as  though  you  rejoiced 
not.  You  reckon  it  a  mark  of  true  wisdom,  to  keep 
the  end  of  your  lives  habitually  in  view  ;  and  to  fol- 
low the  advice  of  the  holy  scriptures,  where  you  are 
directed  to  go  to  the  house  of  mourning,  rather  than 
to  the  house  of  feasting  ;  where  the  godly  are  described 
as  praying.  So  teach  us  to  number  our  days,  that  we 
may  apply  our  hearts  unto  wisdom  ;  and  God  himself 
assaying,  O  that  they  ivere  tvise,  that  they  understood 
this,  that  they  would  consider  their  latter  end,*  But 
these  things,  instead  of  being  recommended  and  urged 
as  motives  of  piety,  are  discouraged  by  Dr.  Priestley, 
who  teaches  that,  It  /^^  not  necessary  to  dwell  in  our 
thoughts  upon  death  and  futurity^  lest  it  should  inter-' 
rupt  the  business  of  life,  and  cause  us  to  live  in  per" 
petual  bondage.f 

*  Eccles.  vii.  2.       Ps.  xc   12.       Deut.  xxxii  29. 
f  Sermon  on  the  death  of  Mr.  Robinson,  p.  7 — 22. 


250  ON   HEAVENLY-MINDEDNFSS.         [lET.    14. 

The  scriptures  greatly  recommend  the  virtue  of 
keavenli/'mindedness.  They  teach  christians  to  con- 
sider themselves  as  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the 
earth  ;  to  be  dead  to  the  world,  and  to  consider  their 
life,  or  portion,  as  hid  with  Christ  in  God»  The 
spiritual,  holy,  and  happy  state,  'which,  according  to 
the  Calvinistic  system,  commences  at  death,  and  is 
augmented  at  the  resurrection,  tends  more  than  a 
little  to  promote  this  virtue.  If,  brethren,  you  adopt 
these  views  of  things,  you  consider  the  body  as  a 
tabernacle,  a  temporary  habitation  ;  and  when  this 
tabernacle  is  dissolved  by  death,  you  expect  a  house 
not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens.  Hence 
it  is,  that  you  desire  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and 
present  with  the  Lord.  There  are  seasons  in  which 
your  views  are  expanded,  and  your  hearts  enlarged. 
At  those  seasons  especially,  the  world  loses  its  charms, 
and  you  see  nothing  worth  living  for,  except  to  serve 
and  glorify  God.  You  have,  in  a  degree,  the  same 
feelings  which  the  apostle  Paul  appears  to  have  pos- 
sessed, when  he  said,  /  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two^ 
having  a  desire  to  depart^  and  to  be  with  Christ,  which 
is  far  better — For  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is 
gain.  But  Dr.  Priestley  teaches,  that  the  heavenly 
state  shall  not  commence  till  the  resurrection.  He 
does  not  suppose  that  there  is  any  state  of  existence, 
strictly  speaking,  wherein  we  shall  be  absent  from 
the  body,  and  present  with  the  Lord  ;  for  he  considers 
the  soul  as  having  no  existence  at  all  separate  from 
the  body.  He  must,  therefore,  of  necessity  be  a 
stranger  to  any  such  strait  as  that  mentioned  by  the 
apostle.  If  the  question  were  put  to  him,  or  to  any 
of  his  sentiments.  Whether  they  would  choose  to  abide 
longer  in  the  jiesh,  (which  might  be  profitable  to 
their  connexions)    or   immediately    depart   this    life  } 


LET,   14.]         ON  HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS.  251 

They  would  be  at  no  loss  what  to  answer.  They 
could  not,  in  any  rational  sense,  consider  death  as 
^aiti*  It  would  be  impossible  for  them  upon  their 
principles,  to  desire  to  depart.  Conceiving  that 
they  come  to  the  possession  of  heavenly  felicity  as 
soon,  if  they  die  fifty  years  hence,  as  if  they  were  to 
die  at  the  present  time,  they  must  rather  desire  to  live 
as  long  as  the  course  of  nature  will  admit  ;  so  long, 
however,  as  life  can  be  considered  as  preferable  to  noi>*- 
existence.  It  would  indicate  even  a  mean  and  un- 
worthy temper  of  mind,  upon  their  principles,  to  be 
in  such  a  strait  as  Paul  describes.  It  would  imply, 
that  they  were  weary  of  their  work,  and  at  a  loss 
whether  they  should  choose  a  cessation  of  being,  or  to 
be  employed  in  serving  God,  and  in  doing  good  to 
their  fellow-creatures* 

The  NATOtiE  and  employments  of  the  heavenly 
state,  deserve  also  to  be  considered.  If  you  adopt 
the  Calvinistic  view  of  things,  you  consider  the  en- 
joyments and  employments  of  that  state  in  a  very 
different  light,  from  that  in  which  Socinian  writers 
represent  them.  You  read  in  your  Bibles,  that  the 
Lord  will  be  our  everlasting  lii^ht,  and  our  God  our 
glory — that  our  life  is  hid  with  Christy  in  God — that 
when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  appear  with  him  in 
glory — And,  that  we  shall  then  be  like  him,  for 
ive  shall  see  him  as  he  is.     Hence  you  conclude,  that 

A  FULL  ENJOYMENT  OF  GOD,  AND  CONFORMITY 
TO     HIM,      ARE     THE      SUM      OF      HfcAVEN.         You     read 

•  further,  that  the  bliss  in  reserve  for  christians,  is 
a  far  more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of  glory — 
that  now  we  are  the  sons  of  God,  but  it  doth  not 
yet  appear  what  we  shall  ^e  :  and  from  hence  you 
naturally  conclude,  that  the  heavenly  state  will 

ABUNDANTLY     SURPASS     ALL    OUR   PRESENT    CONCEP- 


25^  ON  HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS.         [lET.   I4. 

TIONS  OF  IT.  Again,  you  read  that  those  who  shall 
be  found  loorthy  to  obtain  that  worlds  and  the  res^ 
urrection  from  the  dead,  neither  marry,  nor  are 
given  in  marriage,  but  are  like  the  angels  of  God. 
Hence  you  conclude,    that  the    employments  and 

ENJOYMENTS      OF      THAT      STATE      ARE      ALTOGETHER 

SPIRITUAL  AND  HOLY.  You  read  of  our  knowledge 
here  being  in  part ;  but  that  there  we  shall  knoio  even 
as  we  are  known  ;  and  that  the  Lamb,  ivhich  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  throne,  shall  feed  us,  and  lead  us  to 
living  fountains  of  water.  Hence  you  conclude, 
that  we  shall  not  only  enjoy  greater  means  of 
knowledge,  which,  like  a  fountain,  will  flow  for- 
ever,    and   assuage   our    thirsty  souls,  but,    that  our 

MINDS  WILL  BE  ABUNDANTLY  IRRADIATED,  AND 
OUR  HEARTS  ENLARGED  BY  THE  PRESENCE  OF 
CHRIST  ;  WHOSE  DELIGHTFUL  WORK  IT  WILL  BE 
TO  OPEN  THE  BOOK,  AND  TO  LOOSE  THE  SEALS  ; 
TO  UNFOLD  THE  MYSTERIES  OF  GOD  ;  AND  TO  CON- 
DUCT OUR  MINDS  AMIDST  THEIR  BOUNDLESS  RE- 
SEARCHES. Once  more  :  You  read-  concerning  those 
who  shall  obtain  that  world  and  the  resurrection, 
that  they  cannot  die  any  more — that  they  shall  go  no 
more  out — that  the  inheritance  to  which  they  are  re- 
served is  incorruptible,  and  fadeth  not  aivay — and 
that  the  weight  of  glory  which  we  look  for  is  eternal. 
Hence  you  conclude,  that  the  immortality  prom- 
ised TO  christians  is  certain  and  absolute. 

These  are  very  important  matters,  and  must  have 
a  great  influence  in  attracting  your  hearts  toward 
heaven.  These  were  the  things  which  caused 
the  patriarchs  to  live  like  strangers  and  pilgrims  on 
the  earth.  They  looked  for  a  habitation,  a  better 
country,  even  a  heavenly  one.  These  were  the 
things  that   made  the    apostles    and   primitive    chris- 


LET.  13]         ON  HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS.  25^ 

tians  consider  their  afflictions  as  light  and  momentary. 
For  this  cause,  say  they,  ice  faint  not;  hut  though 
our  outward  man  perish^  yet  the  inward  man  is  renew* 
ed  day  by  day.  For  our  light  affliction,  which  is  but 
for  a  moment,  icorketh  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding 
and  eternal  weight  of  glory  :  while  we  look  not  at 
the  things  ichich  are  seen,  but  at  the  things  which  are 
not  seen  ;  for  the  things  which  are  seen  are  temporal ^ 
but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  etemaL 

But  if  you  adopt  the  Socinian  view  of  things,  your 
ideas  of  the  heavenly  state,  compared  with  the  above, 
will  be  miserably  flat  and  cold  ;  and  consequently,  your 
affections  will  be  more  set  on  things  below,  and  less  on 
thino^s  above.  Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  Sermon  on  the 
djath  of  Mr,  Robinson,  is  not  only  employed  in  dis- 
suading people  from  too  much  thought  and  fear  about 
death  ;  but  from  too  much  hope  respecting  the  state 
beyond  it.  He  seems  to  fear  lest  we  should  form  too 
high  expectations  of  heavenly  felicity,  and  so  meet  with 
a  disappointment.  The  heaven  which  he  there  des- 
cribes, does  not  necessarily  include  any  one  of  the  fore- 
going ideas  ;  but  might  exist  if  they  were  all  excluded  I 

Take  his  own  words  :  "  The  change  of  our  condition 
by  death  may  not  be  so  great  as  we  are  apt  to  imagine. 
As  our  natures  will  not  be  changed,  but  only  improved, 
we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  the  future  world  (which 
will  be  adapted  to  our  merely  improved  nature)  will  be 
materially  dij/erent  from  this.  And  indeed  why  should 
we  ask,  or  expect  any  thing  more  ?  If  we  should  still 
be  obliged  to  provide  for  our  subsistence  by  exercise,  or 
labour  ;  is  that  a  thing  to  be  complained  of  by  those 
who  are  supposed  to  have  acquired  fixed  habits  of  in- 
dustry, becoming  rational  beings,  and  who  have  never 
been  able  to  bear  the  languor  of  absolute  rest,  or  indo- 
lence ?  Our  future  happiness  has,  with  much  reason, 
X 


254  ON  HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS.  [lET.  14» 

been  supposed  to  arise  from  an  increase  of  knowledge. 
But  if  we  should  have  nothing  more  than  the  means  of 
knowledge  furnished  us,  as  we  have  here,  but  be  left  to 
our  own  labour  to  find  it  out;  is  that  to  be  complained 
of  by  those  who  will  have  acquired  a  love  of  truths  and 
a  habit  of  inquiring  after  it  ?  To  make  discoveries  our- 
selves, though  the  search  may  require  time  and  labour, 
js  unspeakably  more  pleasing  than  to  learn  every  thing 
by  the  information  of  others.*  If  the  iminortality  that 
is  promised  to  us  in  the  gospel  should  not  be  necessary^ 
and  absolute,  and  we  should  only  have  the  certain 
means  of  making  ourselves  immortal,  we  should  have 
much  to  be  thankful  for.  What  the  scriptures  inform 
us  concerning  a  future  life  is  expressed  in  general  terms, 
and  often  in  figurative  language.  A  more  particular 
knowledge  of  it  is  wisely  concealed  from  us.'*f 

You  see,  brethren,  here  is  not  one  word  of  God,  or 
of  Christ,  as  being  the  sum  and  substance  of  our  bliss  5 
and,  except  that  mention  is  made  of  our  being  freed 
from  **  imperfections  bodily  and  mental,"  the  whole 
consists  of  mere  natural  enjoyments  ;  differing  from 
the  paradise  of  Mahometans  chiefly  in  this,  that  their 
enjoyments  are  principally  sensual,  whereas  these  are 
mostly  intellectual.  Those  are  adapted  to  gratify  the 
voluptuary,  and  these  the  philosopher.  Whether  such 
a  heaven  will  suit  a  holy  mind,  or  be  adapted  to  draw 
forth  our  best  affections,  judge  ye. 

I  am,   &c. 

•  Is  not  this  the  rock  on  which  Dr.  Priestley  and  his  breth- 
ren split  ?  Have  they  not  on  this  very  principle  coined  a  gos- 
pel  of  their  own,  instead  of  receiving  the  instructions  of  the 
sacred  writers  ? 

f  Page   18. 


LET.   15.]      TENDENCY  OF  SOCINIANISM,  &C.  255 

LETTER  XV. 

ON  THE  RESEMBLANCE  BETWEEN  SOCINIANI&M  AND 
INFIDELITY,  AND  THE  TENDENCY  OF  THE  ONE 
TO    THE    OTHKR. 

Christian  Brethren^ 

I  SUPPOSE  we  may  take  it  for  granted,  at 
present.  That  Christianity  is  favourable  to  true  virtue, 
and  that  iDfidelity  is  the  reverse.  If  it  can  be  proved, 
therefore,  that  Socinianism  resenables  infidelity  in 
several  of  its  leading  features,  and  has  a  direct  ten- 
dency towards  it,  that  will  be  the  same  as  proving  it 
unfavourable  to  true  virtue. 

It  has  been  observed,  and  I  think  justly,  that 
"  there  is  no  consistent  medium  between  genuine 
Christianity,  and  infidelity."  The  smallest  departure 
from  the  one,  is  a  step  towards  the  other.  There 
are  different  degrees  of  approach,  but  all  move  on  in 
the  same  direction.  Socinians,  however,  are  not  will- 
ing to  own  that  their  scheme  has  any  such  tendency. 
Dr.  Priestley  appears  to  be  more  than  a  little  hurt, 
at  being  represented  by  the  bigots  (as  he  politely 
calls  those  who  think  ill  of  his  principles)  as  under- 
raining  Christianity  ;  and  intimates,  that  by  their 
rigid  attachment  to  certain  doctrines,  some  are  forced 
into  infidelity,  while  others  are  saved  from  it  by  his 
conciliating    principles.*      Many    things   to   the   same 

•  Here  the  late  Mr.  Robinson  of  Cambridge  is  brought  in 
as  an  exarnple  ;  who,  as  some  think,  in  an  excess  of  complai- 
sance, told  the  doctor  in  a  private  letter,  that,  **  But  for  his 
friendly  aid,  he  feared  he  should  have  gone  from  enthusiasm 
to  deism."  Letters  to  Mr.  Burn,  Preface.  To  say  nothing 
whether  the  use  Dr.  Priestley  made  of  this  private  Letter 
was  warrantable,  and  whether  it  would  not  have  been  full  a» 


^56  TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [lET.  15» 

purpose  are  advanced  by  Mr.  Lindsey,  in  his  Dis~ 
course  addressed  to  the  congregation,  at  the  Chapel  in 
Essex'Street,  Strand  ;  on  resigning  the  pastoral  office 
among  them.  We  are  to  accommodate  our  religion, 
it  seems,  to  the  notions  and  inclinations  of  infidels, 
and  then  they  would  condescend  to  receive  it.  This 
principle  of  accommodation  has  been  already  noticed 
in  Letter  ill.  And  it  has  been  shown,  from  the  ex- 
ample of  the  popish  missionaries  in  China,  to  have  no 
good  tendency.  To  remove  every  stumbling-block 
out  of  the  way  of  infidels,  would  be  to  annihilate  the 
gospel.  Such  attempts  also  suppose  what  is  not  true; 
That  their  not  believing  in  Christianity  is  owing  to 
some  fault  in  the  system  as  generally  received,  and 
Tiot  to  the  temper  of  their  own  minds.  Faults  there 
are,  no  doubt  :  but  if  their  hearts  were  right,  they 
would  search  the  scriptures  for  themselves,  and  form 
their  own  sentiments  according  to  the  best  of  their 
capacity. 

The  near  relation  of  the  system  of  Socinians  to  that 
of  infidelp,  may  be  proved  from  the  agreement  of 
their  .  princiiiles,  their  prejudices,  their  spirit,  and 
their  success. 

First  :  There  is  an  agreement  in  their  leading  prin^ 
ciples, — One  of  the  most  important  principles  in  the 
scheme  of  infidelity,  it  is  well  known,  is,  the  suffi- 
ciency OF  HUMAN  REASON.  This  is  the  great  bul- 
wark   of  the   cause,  and    the    main  ground   on    which 

modest  to  have  forborne  to  publish  to  the  world  so  high  a 
compliment  on  himself  ;  supposing  not  only  the  thing  itself  to 
have  been  strictly  true,  but  that  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Priestley 
was  as  strictly  proper,  what  does  it  prove  ?  Nothing,  except, 
that  the  region  of  Socinianism  is  so  near  to  that  of  deism,  that 
Tjovv  and  then  an  individual,  who  was  on  the  high  road  to  the 
one,  has  stopped  short,  and  taken  up  with  the  other. 


LET.   15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  257 

its  advocates  proceed  in  rejecting  revelation.  If  the 
one,  say  they,  be  sufficient,  the  other  is  unnecessary. 
Whether  the  Socinians  do  iiot  adopt  the  same  principle, 
and  follow  hard  after  the  deists  in  its  application  too, 
we  will  now  inquire. — When  Mr.  Burn  charged  Dr. 
Priestley  with  making  "  the  reason  of  the  individual 
the  sole  umpire  in  matters  of  faith  ;"  the  doctor  de- 
nied the  charge,  and  supposed  that  Mr,  Burn  must 
have  been  "  reading  the  writings  of  Bolingbroke, 
Hume,  or  Voltaire,  and  have  imagined  them  to  be 
his  f '  as  if  none  but  professed  intidels  maintained 
that  principle.  This,  however,  is  allowing  it  to  be  a 
principle  pertaining  to  intidelity  ;  and  of  such  im- 
portance, it  should  seem,  as  to  distinguish  it  from 
Christianity,  If  it  should  prove,  therefore,  that  the 
same  principle  occupies  a  place,  yea,  and  an  equally 
important  place  in  the  Socinian  scheme,  it  will  follow 
that  Socinianism  and  dfism  must  be  nearly  allied. 
But  Dr.  Priestley,  as  was  said,  denies  the  charge  ; 
and  tells  us  that  he  **  has  written  a  great  deal  to  prove 
the  insujpciency  of  human  reason  :"  he  also  accuses 
Mr.  Burn  of  "  the  grossest  ai.d  most  unfounded  cal- 
umny," in  charging  such  a  principle  upon  him.* 

If  what  Mr.  Burn  alleges,  be  '*  a  gross  and  unfound- 
ed calumny,"  it  is  rather  extraordinary  that  such  a 
number  of  respectable  writers  should  have  suggested 
the  same  thing.  I  suppose  there  has  been  scarcely  a 
writer  of  any  note  among  us,  but  who,  if  this  be  calum- 
ny, has  calumniated  the  Socinians,  If  there  be  any 
credit  due  to  Truiitarian  authors,  they  certainly  have 
hitherto  understood  matters  in  a  different  light  from 
that  in  which  they  are  here  represented.  They  have 
supposed,  whethec  rightly  or  not,  that  their  opponents 
X  2 
•  Letter  IV.  to  Mr.  Burn. 


^S/St  TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [lET.   15« 

in  general  do  hold  the  very  principle  which  Dr.  Priest- 
ley so  strongly  disavows. 

But  this  is  not  all.  If  what  Mr.  Burn  alleges  be  a 
gross  and  unfounded  calumny,  it  is  still  more  extraor- 
dinary, that  Socinian  writers  sliould  calumniate  them- 
selves. Mr.  Robinson,  whom  Dr.  Priestley  glories  in 
as  his  convert,  affirms  much  the  same  thing,  and  that 
in  his  History  of  Baptisin ;  a  work  published  after  he 
had  adopted  the  Socinian  system.  In  answering  an  ob- 
jection brought  against  the  Baptists  as  being  enthusi- 
asts, he  asks  ;  ''  Were  Castelio,  and  Servetus,  Socinus, 
and  Crellius  enthusiasts  ?  On  the  contrary,  they  are 
taxed   with  attributing  too  much  to  reason,   at^d   the 

SUFFICIENCY     OF     REASON     IS     THE     SOUL     OF     THEIR 

SYSTEM."*  If  the  last  member  of  this  sentence  be 
true,  and  if  Dr.  Priestley  have  maintained  the  same 
principle  as  much  as  any  of  his  predecessors  ;  then  is 
what  Mr.  Burn  alleges  true  also,  and  no  calumny.— 
Further:  If  Mr,  Robinson's  words  be  true,  the  system 
of  a  Socinus,  and  of  a  Bolingbroke,  however  they  may 
diifer  in  some  particulars,  cannot  be  very  wide  asunder. 
They  may  be  two  bodies  ;  but  the  difference  cannot  be 
very  material,  so  long  as  those  bodies  are  inhabited  by 
ONE    SOUL. 

But  was  not  Mr,  Robinson  mistaken  ?  Has  he  not 
inadvertently  granted  that  which  ought  not  in  justice 
to  have  been  granted  ?  Suppose  this  to  be  a  fact,  why 
might  not  the  same  construction  have  been  put  upon 
what  is  alleged  by  Mr.  Burn,  and  other  Trinitarian 
writers,  instead  of  calling  it  by  the  hard  name  of  *'  gross 
and  unfounded  calumny  ?"  If  we  say  no  worse  of  our 
opponents  than  they  say  of  themselves,  they  can  have 
no  just  grounds  of  complaint  ;  at  least,  they  should 
complain  with  less  severity, 

»  Page  A/r. 


I^T.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  25^ 

Further  :  If  Mr,  Robinson  was  mistaken,  and  if 
Dr.  Priestley  do  really  maintain  the  insupi ciency  of 
human  reason  in  matters  ot  religion  ;  it  will  ioUpw, 
after  all  that  he  has  pleaded  in  behalf  of  reason,  that 
he  is  no  better  friend  to  it  than  other  people.  The 
doctor  often  reminds  his  Calvinistic  opponents  of  an 
old  sayings  that  "  No  man  is  against  reason,  till  rea- 
son is  against  him."  Old  sayings,  to  be  sure,  prove 
much  in  argument.  This  old  saying,  however,  is 
very  just,  provided  the  term  reason  be  understood  of 
the  real  fitness  of  things.  Dr.  Priestley's  opponents 
are  not  against  reason,  in  this  sense  of  the  word  ;  but 
against  setting  up  the  reason  of  the  individual  SiS  um- 
pire in  matters  of  faith  :  and  this,  we  see,  is  no  more 
than  the  doctor  himself  disavows ;  in  that  he  sup- 
poses a  principle  of  this  kind  is  no  where  to  be  found, 
except  in  such  writings  as  those  of  Bolingbroke,  or 
Hume,  or  of  Voltaire.  He  tells  us  that  he  has  "  writ- 
ten much  to  prove  the  insufjiciency  of  human  reason, 
and  the  necessity  of  divine  revelation."  He  is  then 
professedly  against  reason  in  the  same  sense  as  his 
opponents  are  ;  and  the  deisms  might  remind  him  of 
his  *'  old  saying"  with  as  much  propriety  as  he  re- 
minds other  people  of  it. 

Once  more  :  If  Mr.  Robinson  was  mistaken,  and 
if  his  concession  be  beyond  the  bounds  of  justice  and 
propriety  ;  it  will  follow,  that  notwithstanding  what 
Dr.  Priestley  has  said  of  saving  him  from  infidelity^  he 
was  not  saved  from  it  after  all.  Whether  Mr.  Rob- 
inson*s  words  convey  a  just  idea  of  Socinianism,  or 
not,  they  must  be  allowed  to  express  what  were  his 
own  ideas  of  it.  Whatever,  therefore,  Dr.  Priestley 
believes,  he  appears  to  have  believed  in  the  s^ifiieiency 
of  reason*  But  if  none  besides  infidels  maintain  that 
principle,    it  must  follow,  that  Dr.  Priestley's  glory- 


26d  TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [l.ET.   15. 

iiig  in  Mr.  Robiiison  is  vain  :  and  that,  so  far  from 
saving  hiin  from  iutidelity,  as  he  boasts,  he  was  not  . 
saved  from  it  ;  but  was  the  disciple  of  a  Bohngbroke, 
of  a  Hume,  or  of  a  Voltaire,  raiher  than  of  a  Priestley. 
Bui,  after  ail,  was  Mr.  Robinson  indeed  mistaken  ? 
Is  not  ♦'  the  sufficiency  of  reason  the  soul  of  the 
Socinian  system  V^  It  is  true,  Socinians  do  not  openly 
plead,  as  do  the  deists,  that  reason  is  so  sufficient, 
as  that  revelation  is  uniiecessary  ;  nor  is  it  supposed 
that  Mr,  Robmson  meant  to  acknowledge  that  they 
did.  But  do  they  not  constantly  advance  what 
amounts  to  the  same  thing  ?  I  do  not  know  what 
publications  Dr.  Priestley  refers  to,  when  he  speaks 
of  having  written  a  great  deal  to  prove  the  "  insuffi- 
ciency of  human  reason,  and  the  necessity  of  divine 
revelation  :"  but  if  it  be  upon  the  same  principles 
as  those  which  he  avows  in  his  other  productions,  1 
do  not  see  how  he  can  have  proved  his  point.  Ac- 
cording to  these  principles,  the  sacred  writers  were  as 
liable  to  err  as  other  men,  and  in  some  instances  ac- 
tually did  err  ;  producing  "lame  accounts,  improper 
quotations,  and  inconclusive  reasonings  ;**  and  that 
it  is  the  province  of  reason  not  only  to  judge  of 
their  credentials,  but  of  the  particular  doctrines  which 
they  advance.*  Now,  this  is  not  only  "  making  the 
reason  of  the  individual  the  sole  umpire  in  matters 
of  faith,"  but  virtually  rendering  revelation  unneces- 
sary. If  the  reason  of  the  individual  be  to  sit  su- 
preme judge,  and  insist  that  every  doctrine  which 
revelation  proposes  shall  approve  itself  to  its  dictates, 
or  be  rejected  ;  the  necessity  of  the  latter  might  as 
well  be  totally  denied.  If  it  be  necessary,  however, 
it  is  no  otherwise   than  as   a  French   parliament  used 

*  See  Letter  xii. 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  26l 

to  be  necessary  to  a  French  king  ;  not  in  order  to 
dictate  to  his  majesty,  but  to  alford  a  sanction  to  his 
resolutions  ;  or,  at  most,  to  tender  him  a  little  advice, 
in  order  to  assist  him  in  forming  his  judgment ;  which 
advice,  notwithstanding,  he  might  receive  or  reject, 
as  best  suited  his  inclination. 

Dr.  Priestley  often  suggests,  that  he  makes  no 
other  use  of  human  reason  than  all  protestants  make 
against  the  papists,  when  pleading  against  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation  ;  that  is,  where  the  literal 
sense  of  a  text  involves  an  absurdity,  he  so  far  fol- 
lows the  dictates  of  reason  as  to  understand  it  tigura- 
tively.  But  this  is  not  the  case  :  for  the  question 
here  does  not  at  all  respect  the  meaning  of  scripture, 
whether  it  should  be  undt;rstood  literally  or  figura- 
tively :  but  whether  its  allowed  meaning  ought  to  be 
accepted  as  truth,  any  further  than  it  corresponds 
with  our  pre-conceived  notions  of  what  is  reason  I 
According  to  the  principles  and  charges  before  cited, 
it  ought  not ;  and  this  is  not  only  summoning  reve- 
lation to  the  bar  of  our  own  understandings,  but 
actually  passing  sentence  against  it. 

The  near  affinity  of  Socinianism  to  deism  is  so 
manifest,  that  is  in  vain  to  disown  it.  Ts'obody  sup- 
poses them  to  be  entirely  the  same.  One  acknowl- 
edges Christ  to  be  a  true  prophet ;  the  other  consid- 
ers him  as  an  impostor  :  but  the  denial  of  the  proper 
inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  with  the  receiving  of 
some  part  of  them  as  true,  and  the  rejecting  of  other 
parts  even  of  the  same  books  as  '*  lame  accounts, 
improper  quotations,  and  inconclusive  reasonings,'* 
naturally  lead  to  deism.  Deists  themselves  do  not  so 
reject  the  bible  as  to  disbelieve  every  historical  event 
which  is  there  recorded.  They  would  not  deny, 
I  suppose,    that   there    were    such   characters  in    the 


262  TENDENCY    OF   SOCINIANISM         [lET.  15. 

world  as  Abraham,  Moses,  and  Jesus  ;  and  that  some 
things   which    are    written  concerning   each,  are   true. 

In  short,  they  take  what  they  like  best,  as  they 
Y^ould  from  any  other  ancient  history,  and  reject  the 
rest  :  and  what  does  Dr»  Priestley  even  pretend  to 
more  ?  He  does  not  reject  so  much  as  a  deist :  he  ad- 
mits various  articles  which  the  other  denies  ;  but  the 
difference  is  only  in  degree.  The  relation  between 
the  first  and  leading  principles  of  their  respective 
systems  is  so  near,  that  one  spirit  may  be  said  to  per- 
vade them  both  ;  or,  to  use  the  imagery  of  Mr,  Rob- 
inson, one  soul  inhabits  these  different  bodies.  The 
opposition  between  faith  and  unbelief  is  so  great  in  the 
the  scriptures,  that  no  less  than  salvation  is  promised 
to  the  one,  and  damnation  threatened  to  the  other  ; 
but  if  they  were  no  further  asunder  than  Socinianism 
and  deism,  it  is  passing  strange  that  their  consequences 
should  be  so  widely  different. 

Another  leading  principle  common  to  Socinians  and 
deists,  is,  The  non^importance  of  principle  itselfy  in 
order  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  divine  favour, — Nothing 
is  more  common  than  for  professed  infidels  to  ex- 
claim against  Christianity,  on  account  of  its  rendering 
the  belief  of  the  gospel  necessary  to  salvation.  Lord 
Shaftesbury  insinuates,  that  the  heathen  magistrates, 
in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  might  have  been  justly 
offended  "  with  a  notion  which  treated  them,  and  all 
men,  as  profane,  impious,  and  damned,  who  entered 
not  into  particular  modes  of  worship,  of  which  there 
had  been  formerly  so  many  thousand  kinds  instituted, 
all  of  them  compatible,  and  sociable,  till  that  time."* 
To  the  same  purpose  is  what  Mr.  Paine  advances  : 
who,  I  imagine,   would  make  no  pretence  of  friendship 

•  Characteristics,  Vol.  1,  §  3. 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  263 

towards  Christianity^  **  If  we  suppose  a  large  family 
of  children,  (says  he)  who  on  any  particular  day,  or 
particular  circumstance,  made  it  a  custom  to  present 
to  their  parents  some  token  of  their  affection  and  grat- 
itude, each  of  them  would  make  a  different  offering, 
and  most  probably  in  a  different  manner.  Some 
would  pay  their  congratulations  in  themes  of  verse, 
or  prose,  by  some  little  devices  as  their  genius  dictated, 
or  according  to  what  they  thought  would  please ; 
and,  perhaps,  the  least  of  all,  not  able  to  do  any  of 
those  things,  would  ramble  into  the  garden  or  the  * 
field,  and  gather  what  it  thought  the  prettiest  flower 
it  could  find,  though,  perhaps,  it  might  be  but  a 
simple  weed.  The  parent  would  be  more  gratified 
by  such  a  variety,  than  if  the  whole  of  them  had 
acted  on  a  concerted  plan,  and  each  had  made  ex- 
actly the  same  offering/'*  And  this  he  applies,  not 
merely  to  the  diversified  modes  of  worshipping  God, 
which  come  within  the  limits  of  the  divine  command; 
but  to  the  various  ways  in  which  mankind  have  in  all 
ages  and  nations  worshipped,  or  pretended  to  svorship 
a  deit3\  Tlie  sentiment  which  this  writer,  and  all 
others  of  his  stamp,  wish  to  propagate,  is,  That  in  all 
modes  of  religion  men  may  be  very  sincere  :  and 
that,  bf^iiig  so,  all  are  alike  acceptable  to  God,  This 
is  infidelity  undisguised.  Yet  this  is  no  more  than 
Dr,  Priestley  has  advanced  in  his  Differences  in 
Religious  Opinions,  '*  If  we  can  be  so  happy,  (he 
says)  as  to  believe,  that — all  differences  in  modes  of 
worship  may  be  only  the  different  methods  by  which 
different  men  (who  are  equally  the  offspring  of  God) 
are  endeavouring  to  honour  and  obey  their  common 
parent,  our  differences  of  opinion  would  have  no  ten- 
dency to  lessen  our  mutual  love  and  esteem. ''f 

•  Rig^hts  of  Man,  Pt.  H.  near  the  conclusion,       f  Sect.  II. 


264  TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [leT.  15. 

Nor  is  Dr.  Priestley  the  only  writer  of  the  party 
who  unites  with  the  author  of  The  Age  of  Reason^ 
in  maintaining  that  it  matters  not  what  religion  we 
are  of,  if  we  be  but  sincere  in  it.  Dr.  Tbw/?wm  has 
laboured  to  defend  this  notion,  and  to  prove  from 
Acts  X.  34,  35.  and  Rom,  ii.  6,  10,  12.  that  it  was 
maintained  by  Peter  and  Paul.*  But  before  he  had 
pretended  to  palm  it  upon  them,  he  should  have  made 
it  evident  that  Cornelius,  when  he  feared  God  and 
tvorked  righteousness,  and  those  Gentiles,  when  they 
are  supposed  to  have  worked  good,  and  to  be  heirs  of 
glory,  ho  lOur,  and  peace,  were  each  of  them  actually 
living  in  idolatry  ;  and  being  sincere,  that  God  was 
well  pleased  with  it.  It  is  no  part  of  the  question, 
whether  heathens  may  be  saved  ;  but  whether  they 
may  be  saved  in  their  heathenism  ;  and  whether  hea- 
thenism and  Christianity  be  only  different  modes  of 
worshipping  our  common  Father,  and  alike  accep- 
table to  him  ? 

Several  other  principles  might  be  mentioned  in 
which  Socinians  and  deists  are  agreed  ;  and  in  which 
the  same  objections  that  are  made  by  the  one  against 
Calvinism,  are  made  by  the  other  against  the  holy 
scriptures.  Do  Socinians  reject  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem, because  it  represents  God  as  a  vindictive  Being  ? 
For  the  same  reason  the  scriptures  themselves  are 
rejected  by  the  deists.  Are  the  former  offended  with 
Calvinism,  on  account  of  the  doctrines  of  atonement, 
and  of  divine  sovereignty  ?  The  latter  are  equally  of- 
fended with  the  Bible  for  the  same  reasons.  They 
know  very  well  that  these  doctrines  are  contained  in 
the  scriptures  ;  but  they  dislike  them,  and  reject  the 
scriptures  partly  on  account  of  them.  The  sufficiency 
of  repentance  to  secure  the   divine  favour — the  evil  of 

*  Practical  Efficacy,    pp.  164,  165,  2d  e<l. 


LET.     15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  ^^3 

sin  consisting  merely  in  its  tendency  to  injure  the 
creature — all  punishment  being  for  the  good  of  the 
offender,  as  well  as  for  the  public  good — with  various 
other  principles,  which  are  opposed  in  these  Letters 
in  defence  of  Calvinism  ;  are  the  same  things  for 
substance,  which  those  who  have  written  against  the 
deists,  have  had  to  encounter,  when  defending  rev- 
elation.* It  is  a  consolation  to  us  to  trace  these 
likenesses,  as  it  affords  a  presumption  that  our  senti- 
ments accord  with  the  scriptures,  being  liable  to  the 
same  objections, 

Socinian  writers  not  only  make  the  same  objec- 
tions to  Calvinism,  which  deists  make  to  revelation  ; 
but,  in  some  instances,  have  so  far  forgotten  them- 
selves as  to  unite  with  the  latter  in  pointing  their 
objections  against  revelation  itself.  Stein bart  and 
Semler  (as  quoted  in  Letter  XIL)  have  fallen  foul 
upon  the  writers  of  the  old  and  New  Testament. 
'*  Moses,  (says  the  former)  according  to  the  childish 
conceptions  of  the  Jews  in  his  days,  paints  God  as 
agitated  by  violent  affections  ;  partial  to  one  people, 
and  hating  all  other  nations," — '«  Peter,  (says  the 
latter,  2  Epis,  i.  21.)  speaks  according  to  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Jews,  and  the  prophets  may  have  delivered 
the  offspring  of  their  own  brains  as  divine  revelations.'*f 
The  intidelity  of  Socinians  is  frequently  covered  with 
a  very  thin  disguise  ;  but  here  the  veil  is  entirely 
thrown  off.  One  thing,  however,  is  sufficiently  ev- 
ident ;  while  they  vent  their  antipathy  asjainst  the 
holy   scriptures  in  such    indecent    language,    they  be- 

*  See  Leland*s  Defence  of  Christianity,  against  Tindail^ 
Vol  I  Chap.  4,  6,  8. 

t  Dr,  Erskine's  Sketches  and  Hints  of  Church  History, 
No.  III.  pp.  65— n. 

Y 


26®  TENDFNCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [lET.  15. 

tray  a  consciousness   that  the  contents  of  that  sacred 
volume  are  against  them. 

The   likeness   of  Socinianism    to  deism   will  further  * 
appear,  if  we  consider,  Secondly,  The  similarity  of  their 
prejudices, — The    peculiar    prejudices    of    deists    are 
drawn,  1  tliink,  with  great  justness,   by  Dr.  Priestley 
himself.     *'  There   is  no  class  or  description  of  men, 
(he  observes)   but  what  are  subject  to   peculiar  preju- 
dices, and  every  prejudice   must   operate  as  an  obstacle 
to  the  reception  of  some  truth.     It  is  in  vain  for  unbe- 
lievers to  pretend   to   be  free  from   prejudices.     They 
may  indeed  be  free  from  those  of  the  vulgar,   but  they 
have  others  peculiar  to  themselves  ;  and  the  very  affec- 
tation of  being  free  from  vulgar  prejudices,  and  of  be- 
ing wiser  than  the  rest  of  mankind,  must  indispose  them 
to  the  admission  even  of  truth,  if  it  should  happen  to  be 
with  the  common  people.    The  suspicion  that  the  faith  of 
the  vulgar  is  superstitious  and  false,  is,  no  doubt,  often 
well-founded  ;  because  they,   of  course,    maintain   the 
oldest  opinions^    while  the  speculative  part  of  mankind 
are  making  new  discoveries  in   science.     Yet  we  often 
find  that  they  who  pride  themselves  on  their  being  the 
farthest  removed   from  superstition  in  some  things,    are 
the  greatest  dupes  to  it  in  others  ;    and  it  is  not  univer* 
sally  true  that  all  old  opinions  are  false,  and   all  new 
ones   well-founded.     An   aversion  to  the  creed  of  the 
vulgar  may  therefore  mislead  a  man,    and  from  a  fond- 
ness   for    singularity    he    may    be    singularly    in    the 
wrong.*'* 

Let  those  who  are  best  acquainted  with  Socinians 
judge  whether  this  address,  with  a  very  few  alterations, 
be  not  equally  adapted  to  them,  as  to  professed  unbe- 
lievers.    We  know  who  they  are,   besides  avowed  infi* 

♦  Letters  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Pt.  ii.  Let.  v. 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  267 

dels,  who  affect  to  be  "emancipated  from  vulgar 
prejudices  and  popular  superstitions,  and  to  embrace 
a  rational  system  of  faith."*  It  is  very  common  with 
Socinian  writers,  as  much  as  it  is  with  deists,  to  value 
themselves  on  being  wiser  than  the  rest  of  mankind, 
and  to  despise  the  judgment  of  plain  christians,  as 
being  the  judgment  of  the  vulgar  and  the  populace. 
It  is  true.  Dr.  Priestley  has  addressed  letters  to  the 
common  people  at  Birmingham,  and  has  complimented 
them  with  being  "  capable  of  judging  in  matters  of 
religion  and  government."  However,  it  is  no  great 
compliment  to  christians  in  general  of  that  descrip- 
tion, to  suppose,  as  he  frequently  does,  not  only  that 
the  Trinitarian  system,  but  every  other,  was  the 
invention  of  learned  men  in  different  ages,  and  that 
the  vulgar  have  always  been  led  by  their  influence. 
•*  The  creed  of  the  vulgar  of  the  present  day,  (he 
observes)  is  to  be  considered  not  so  much  as  their 
creed,  for  they  were  not  the  inventors  of  it,  as  that 
of  the  thinking  and  inquisitive  in  some  former  pe- 
riod. For  those  whom  we  distinguish  by  the  appel- 
lation of  the  vulgar,  are  not  those  who  introduce  any 
new  opinions,  but  who  receive  them  from  others,  of 
whose  judgment  they  have  been  led  to  think  highly,"f 
On  this  principle.  Dr.  Priestley  somewhere  expresses 
his  persuasion  of  the  future  prevalence  of  Unitarianism. 
He  grants  that,  at  present,  the  body  of  common  chris- 
tians are  against  it  ;  but  as  the  learned  and  the  specu- 
lative are  verging  towards  it,  he  supposes  the  other  will 
in  time  follow  them.  What  is  this  but  supposing  them 
incapable  of  forming  religious  sentiments  for  them- 
selves ;  as  if  the  Bible  were  to  them  a  sealed  book,  and 
they  had  only  to  believe   the  system   that  happened  to 

*  Mr.  Belsham's  Sermon,  p.  4 — 32. 
t  Letters  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  Pt.  ii.  Let.  v. 


268  TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [lET.  15. 

be  in  fashion,  or  rather  to  have  been  in  fashion  some 
years  before  they  were  born,  and  to  dance  after  the 
pipe  of  learned  men  ? 

It  is  acknowledged  that,  in  matters  of  human  science, 
common  people,  having  no  standard  to  judge  by,  are 
generally  led  by  the  learned  ;  but  surely  it  is  some- 
what different  in  religion,  where  we  have  a  standard, 
and  one  too  that  is  adapted  to  the  understanding  of  the 
simple.  However  many  people  may  be  led  implicitly 
by  others,  yet  there  will  always  be  a  number  of  plain, 
intelligent,  serious  christians,  who  will  read  the  bible 
and  judge  for  themselves;  and  christians  of  this  des- 
i^ription  will  always  have  a  much  greater  influence,  even 
upon  those  who  do  not  judge  for  themselves,  than 
mere  speculative  men,  whom  the  most  ignorant  cannot 
but  perceive  to  be  wanting  in  serious  religion,  and  res- 
pect to  mankind  ;  and  while  this  is  the  case,  there  is 
no  great  danger  of  the  body  of  common  christians  be- 
coming Socinians. 

Thirdly  :  There  is  a  hold,  profane,  and  daring  spir^ 
27,  discovered  in  the  writings  of  infidels;  a  spirit  that 
fears  not  to  speak  of  sacred  things  with  the  most  inde- 
cent freedom. — They  love  to  speak  of  Christ  with  a 
sneer,  calling  him  the  Carpenter's  son,  the  Galilean,  or 
some  such  name,  which  in  their  manner  of  expressing 
it,  conveys  an  idea  of  contempt.  Though  Socinians 
do  not  go  such  lengths  as  these,  yet  they  follow  hard 
after  them  in  their  profane  and  daring  manner  of  speak- 
ing. Were  it  proper  to  refer  to  the  speeches  of  private 
individuals,  language  might  be  produced  very  little  in- 
ferior in  contempt  to  any  of  the  foregoing  modes  of 
expression  :  and  even  some  of  those  who  have  appear- 
ed as  authors,  have  discovered  a  similar  temper.  Be- 
sides the  examples  of  Engedin,  Gagneius,  Steinbart, 
and  Semler,   (as  quoted  in   Let.  xii.)   the  magnanhniti/ 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  269 

which  has  been  ascribed  to  Dr.  Priestley,  for  censuring 
the  Mosaic  narrative  of  the  fall  of  man,  calling  it  ''  a 
LAMB  account,"  is  an  instance  of  the  same  irreverent 
spirit. 

Fourthly  :  The  alliance  of  Sociniani&ra  to  deism 
may  be  inferred  from  this.  That  the  success  of  the 
ene  bears  a  proportion  to  that  of  the  other,  and  re- 
sembles it  in  the  most  essential  points, — Socinians 
are  continually  boasting  of  their  success,  and  of  the 
great  increase  of  their  numbers  ;  so  also  are  the  de- 
ists,-and  1  suppose  with  equal  reason.  The  number 
of  the  latter  has  certainly  increased  in  the  present 
century,  in  as  great,  if  not  a  greater  proportion,  than 
the  former.  The  truth  is,  a  spirit  of  infidelity  is 
the  main  temptation  of  the  present  age,  as  a  perse- 
cuting superstition  was  of  ages  past.  This  spirit  has 
long  gone  forth  into  the  world.  In  different  denom- 
inations of  men  it  exists  in  different  degrees,  and  ap- 
pears to  be  permitted  to  try  them  that  dwell  upon 
the  earth.  Great  multitudes  are  carried  away  with 
it  ;  aid  no  wonder  :  for  it  disguises  itself  under  a  va- 
riety of  specious  names  ;  such  as  liberality,  candour^ 
and  charity,  by  which  it  imposes  upon  the  unwary. 
It  flatters  human  pride,  calls  evil  propensity  nature, 
and  gives  loose  to  its  dictates  ;  and  in  proportion  as 
it  prevails  in  the  judgments,  as  well  as  in  the  hearts 
of  men,  it  serves  to  abate  the  fear  of  death  and  judg- 
ment, and  so  makes  them  more  cheerful  than  they 
otherwise  would   be. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  success  of  So- 
cinianism  and  deism  has  been  amongst  the  same 
sort  of  people  ;  namely,  men  of  a  speculative  turn 
of  mind.  Dr.  Priestley  somewhere  observes,  that 
*<  learned  men  begin  more  and  more  to  suspect  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  :"  and  possibly  it  may  be  so. 
Y  2 


270  TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [LET.  15. 

Bat  then  it  might  with  equal  truth  be  affirmed,  that 
learned  men  begin  more  and  more  to  suspect  Chris- 
tianity. Dr.  Priestley  himself  acknowledges,  that 
**  among  those  who  are  called  philosophers,  the  un- 
believers are  the  crowd."*  It  is  true,  he  flatters 
himself,  that  iheir  numbers  will  diminish,  and  that 
^«  the  evidences  of  Christianity  will  meet  with  a  more 
impartial  examination  in  the  present  day,  than  they 
have  done  in  the  last  fifty  years.*'  But  this  is  mere 
conjecture,  such  as  hath  no  foundation  in  fact.  We 
may  as  well  flatter  ourselves  that  Socinians  will  di- 
minish :  there  is  equal  reason  for  the  one  as  for  the 
other.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  number  of  both 
may  be  diminished  in  some  future  time,  but  when 
that  time  shall  come,  is  not  for  us  to  say. 

It  may  be  suggested,  that  it  is  a  circumstance  not 
much  in  favour  either  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity, 
or  of  Christianity,  that  such  a  number  of  philosophers 
and  learned  men  suspect  them.  But  unfavourable 
as  this  circumstance  may  appear  to  some,  there  are 
others  who  view  it  in  a  very  diff'erent  light.  The  late 
Mr,  Robinson  of  Cambridge  always  contended,  that 
common  christians  were  in  a  more  favourable  state 
for  the  discovery  of  religious  truth,  than  either  the 
rich  or  the  learned.  And  Dr.  Priestley  not  only  ad- 
mits, but  accounts  for  it.  "  Learned  men  (he  says) 
have  prejudices  peculiar  to  themselves  ;  and  the  very 
affectation  of  being  free  from  vulgar  prejudice,  and 
of  being  wiser  than  the  rest  of  mankind,  must  indis- 
pose them  to  the  admission  even  of  truth,  if  it  should 
happen  to  be  with  the  common  people."  If  not  many 
wise  men  after  the  fiesh  are  found  among  the  friends 
of  Christianity,  or  of  what  we  account  its  peculiar 
floctrines,  is  it  any  other  than  what  might  have  been 

*  Let.  to  a  Phil  Unb,  Vol.  ii.  p.  32. 


LET.   15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  271 

alleged  against  the  primitive  church  ?  The  things  of 
God  in  their  times  were  hid  from  the  wise  and  prudent^ 
and  revealed  unto  babeSf  and  that  because  it  seemed 
good  in  his  sight. 

It  is  further  worthy  of  notice,  that,  the  same  diS'- 
regard  of  religion  in  general^  which  is  allowed  by 
our  opponents  to  be  favourable  to  Socinianisra,  is 
equally  favourable  to  deism.  Dr.  Priestley  de- 
scribes unbelievers  of  a  certain  age  amongst  us,  as 
"  having  heard  Christianity  from  their  infancy,  as  hav- 
ing in  general  believed  it  for  some  time,  and  as  not 
coming  to  disbelieve  it  till  they  had  long  disregarded 
itJ*'*  A  disregard  of  Christianity,  then,  preceded 
their  openly  rejecting  it,  and  embracing  the  scheme 
of  infidelity.  Now  this  is  the  very  process  of  a  great 
number  of  Socinian  converts,  as  both  the  doctor  and 
Mr,  Belsham  elsewhere  acknowledge.  It  is  by  a 
idisregard  of  all  religion  that  men  become  infidels  ; 
and  it  is  by  the  same  means  that  others  become 
Socinians. 

The  foregoing  observations  may  suffice  to  shew 
the  resemblance  of  Socinianism  to  deism.  It  remains 
for  me  to  consider  the  tendency  of  the  one  to  the  other. 

Dr.  Priestley  seems  to  admit  that  his  scheme  ap- 
proaches nearer  to  that  of  unbelievers  than  ours  ; 
but  then  he  disowns  its  having  any  tendency  on  that 
account  to  lead  men  to  infidelity.  On  the  contrary, 
he  retorts  the  charge  upon  his  opponents,  and  asserts 
his  own  scheme  to  have  an  opposite  effect,  **  An 
enemy,  as  I  am  considered  to  Christianity,  by  some, 
(says  he)  I  have  saved  many  from  that  infidelity  into 
which  the  bigots  are  forcing  them."  The  case  of 
the  late  Mr.  Robinson  is  here  introduced  as  an  ex- 
ample to  confirm  this  assertion.     The  reasoning  of  Dr. 

*  Let.  to  a  Phil,  Unb.  Vol.  ii.  pref.  p.  ix. 


^^  Tt^lNDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM  [lET.   15. 

Priestley  on  this  subject  resembles  that  of  Abp^ 
Laud  on  another.  When  accused  of  leaning  to 
popery,  he  denied  the  charge,  and  gave  in  a  list  of 
tweniy-one  persons  whom  he  had  not  merely  saved 
from  going  over  to  that  religion,  but  actually  coii'- 
verted  ihem  from  it  to  the  protestant  faith.*  Yet  few 
thinking  people  imagine  the  principles  of  Laud  to 
have  been  very  unfriendly  to  popery  ;  much  less 
that  they  were  adapted  to  save  men  from  it. 

That  Socinianism  has  a  direct  tendency  to  deism, 
will  appear  from  the  following  considerations.  First  : 
By  giving  up  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  scrip- 
tures, and  allowing  them  to  be  the  production  of 
fallible  men,  (of  men  who,  though  too  honest  know- 
ingly to  i  npose  upon  others,  were,  notwithstanding,  \ 
so  far  under  the  influence  of  inattention,  of  prejudice, 
and  of  misinformation,  as  to  be  capable  of  being 
imposed  upon  themselves)  Socinians  furnish  infidels 
with  a  handle  for  rejecting  them. — To  give  up  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  is  to  give  them 
up  as  the  word  of  God^  and  as  binding  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  men ;  to  which  our  opponents  apparently 
have  no  objection.  They  are  seldom,  if  ever,  known 
to  warn  mankind  that  the  rejection  of  the  holy  scrip- 
tures will  enda[iger  their  eternal  welfare.  Nor  can 
they  do  so  consistently  with  what  they  elsewhere  plead 
for,  that  "  all  differences  in  modes  of  worship  may 
be  only  different  modes  of  endeavouring  to  honour 
and  obey  our  common  Parent."  Under  the  pretence 
of  appealing  to  the  reason  of  unbelievers,  they  neglect 
to  address  themselves  to  their  hearts  and  consciences. 
If  the  cause  of  infidelity  lie  in  the  want  of  evidence, 
or  if  those  who  leaned  towards  it,  were  ingenuous  and 
disinterested   inquirers   after   truth,     solemn    warnings 

*  See  Neale's  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  iii,  Index,  Art.  Laud. 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  S73i 

might  be  less  necessary.  But  if  it  lie  in  the  temper 
of  their  hearts,  which  blinds  their  minds  to  the  most 
convincing  proofs  ;  their  hearts  and  consciences  must 
be  addressed,  as  well  as  their  understandings.  The 
sacred  writers  and  preachers  always  proceeded  upon 
this  principle.  This  only  will  account  for  such  lan- 
guage as  the  following  :  The  blindness  of  their  heart 
•^^Lest  they  should  understand  with  their  heaat, 
and  be  converted — Repent  and  believe  the  gospel'-^ 
If  Crod  peradventure  will  give  them  repentance 
to  the  acknoivledging  of  the  truth.  This  was  the 
method  of  John  the  Baptist,  of  Christ,  and  his  apos- 
tles, in  their  addresses  to  unbelievers  :  and  whatever 
addresses  are  made  to  infidels,  whether  Jews  or  deists^ 
in  which  the  sin  of  unbelief  and  the  danger  of  per- 
sisting in  it,  are  not  insisted  on,  they  will  tend  to 
harden  them  in  infidelity,  rather  than  to  recover  them 
out  of  it.  Dr.  Priestley  in  effect  acknowledges,  that 
the  cause  of  infidelity  lies  in  the  temper  of  the  heart: 
and  yet,  when  he  addresses  himself  to  infidels,  h^ 
seems  to  consider  them  as  merely  in  want  of  evidence, 
and  fosters  in  them  an  idea  of  their  security,  notwith- 
standing their  rejection  of  the  gospel.  This  is  man- 
ifestly the  tendency  of  his  Letters  to  the  philosophers 
and  politicians  of  France. 

Dr.  Priestley  acknowledges  that  men  seldom  re* 
ject  Christianity  in  theory^  till  they  have  long  disre^ 
garded  it  in  practice*  That  is,  they  seldom  be- 
lieve it  to  be  false,  without  their  hearts  being  fully 
inclined  to  have  it  so.  Let  us  then  consider  a  char- 
acter of  this  description  in  his  examination  of  Chris- 
tianity, He  has  long  disregarded  the  practice  of  it, 
and  begins  now  to  hesitate  about  its  truth.  If  he 
read   a  defence  of  it  upon  our  principles,  he  will  find 

*  Let.  to  a  Phil.  Unb.  vol.  U.  pref  p.  ix. 


274  TENDENCY    OF   SOCINIANISM         [leT.   15. 

the  authority  of  Heaven  vindicated  ;  his  own  sceptical 
spirit  condemned ;  and  is  warned  that  he  fall  not 
upon  a  rock  that  will  prove  his  eternal  ruin*  He 
throws  it  aside  in  resentment  ;  calls  the  writer  a  bigot ; 
and  considers  the  tvarning  given  hirn,  as  an  insult  to 
his  dignity.  Still,  however,  there  is  a  sting  left  be- 
hind, which  he  knows  not  how  to  extract;  a  some- 
thing which  says  within  him,  How,  if  it  should  be 
true  ?  He  takes  up  a  defence  of  Christianity  upon 
Socinian  principles  :  suppose  Dr.  Priestley's  Letters 
to  the  Philosophers  and  Politicians  of  France.  He 
is  now  brought  to  a  better  humour.  Here  is  no 
threatening  ;  no  imminent  danger.  The  sting  is  ex- 
tracted. The  reasoning  in  many  parts  is  plausible  ; 
but  having  long  wished  to  disbelieve  Christianity,  it 
makes  little  or  no  impression  upon  him  ;  especially 
as  it  seems  to  be  of  no  great  consequence  if  he  do 
so.  It  is  only  rejecting  that  entirely,  which  professed 
christians  reject  in  part.  It  is  only  throwing  off  the 
testimony  and  opinions  of  fallible  men.  What  will 
be  his  next  step,  is  not  very  difficult  to  conjecture. 
By  allowing  part  of  the  gospels  to  be  spurious^ 
Socinian  writers  enable  the  Jews  to  ask,  with  an  air  of 
triumph,  "  How  are  we  sure  that  the  remainder  is  au- 
thentic ?''*  We  are  often  told  that  the  Jews  can  never 
embrace  what  is  called  orthodox  Christianity,  because 
of  its  inconsistency  with  one  of  the  first  principles  of 
their  religion,  the  uniti/  of  God.  We  do  not  ask  them, 
however,  to  give  up  the  unity  of  God.  On  the  contra- 
ry, we  are  fully  persuaded  that  our  principles  are  entire- 
ly consistent  with  it.  But  this  is  more  than  our  oppo- 
nents can  say,  with  regard  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
scriptures  ;  a  principle  as  sacred,  and  as  important  with 
the  Jews,   as  the  unity  of  God  itself.     Were  they  to 

•  Mr.  D.  Levi's  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  82.. 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  27^ 

embrace  Dr.  Priestley's  notions  of  Christianity,  they 
must  give  up  this  principle,  and  consider  their  own  sa- 
cred writings  in  a  much  meaner  light  than  they  at 
present  do.  They  have  no  conception  of  the  Old 
Testament  being  a  mere  authentic  history  of  past 
transactions  ;  but  profess  to  receive  it  as  the  very 
tvord  of  God ;  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
Whenever  they  shall  receive  the  New  Testament, 
there  is  reason  to  conclude  it  will  be  under  the  same 
character,  and  for  the  same  purposes.  While  they 
consider  their  own  scriptures  as  divinely  inspired,  and 
hear  professed  christians  acknowledge,  that  "  part  of 
their  gospels  is  spurious  ;"  they  will  be  tempted  to 
look  down  upon  Christianity  with  scorn,  and  so  be 
hardened  in  their  infidelity. 

Secondly  :  If  the  sacred  writings  be  not  received 
for  the  purpos^^s  for  which  they  were  professedly  giv- 
en, and  for  which  they  were  actually  appealed  to  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  they  are  in  effect  rejected  : 
and  those  who  pretend  to  embrace  them  for  other 
purposes,  will  themselves  be  found  to  have  passed  the 
boundaries  of  Christianity,  and  to  be  walking  in  the 
paths  of  infidelity. — We  have  seen  in  Letter  Xll.  that 
the  scriptures  profess  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Now,  if  any  man  believe 
in  revelation,  he  must  receive  it  as  being  what  it 
professes  to  be,  and  for  all  the  purposes  for  which  it 
professes  to  have  been  written.  The  Monthly  Revieiv 
suggests,  that  the  scriptures  were,  never  designed  to 
settle  disputed  theories,  or  to  decide  speculative  con- 
troverted questions  even  in  religion  and  morality."* 
But  if  so,  what  must  we  think  of  their  assuming  to 
be  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  What  must  we 
think  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  who  appealed  to  them 

♦  Men.  Rev.  Enlarged,    Vol.  x.  p.  25T. 


f76  TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [lET.     15. 

for  the  truth  of  their  doctrines,  and  the  goodness  of 
their  precepts  ?  On  the  principles  of  our  opponents, 
they  must  have  been  either  weak  or  wicked.  If  they 
considered  them  as  the  standard  of  faith  and  practice, 
they  must  have  been  weak.  If  they  did  not,  and  yet 
appealed  to  them  as  a  decisive  test,  they  were  cer- 
tainly wicked.  In  either  case,  their  testimony  is  un- 
tvorthy  of  regard  ;  which  is  downright  infidelity. 

Thirdly  :  By  the  degrading  notions  which  Socin- 
ians  entertain  of  the  person  of  Christ,  they  do  what 
in  them  lies  to  lessen  the  sin  of  rejecting  him  ;  and  af- 
ford the  adversaries  of  the  gospel  a  ground  for  accusing 
him  of  presumption  ;  which  must  necessarily  harden 
them  in  unbelief — The  Jews  consider  their  nation,  ac- 
cording to  the  sentiments  of  orthodox  christians,  as  ly- 
ing under  the  charge  "  of  crucifying  the  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour of  the  world  :**  but,  according  to  those  of  Dr. 
Priestley  as  only  having  crucified  '*  a  prophet^  that  was 
sent  to  them  in  the  first  instance.'**  Such  a  considera- 
tion diminishes  the  degree  of  their  guilt ;  tends  to  render 
them  more  indifferent  ;  and,  consequently,  must  har- 
den them  in  infidelity. — By  considering  our  Lord  as 
nierelif  a  prophet,  Socinians  also  furnish  the  Jews  with 
the  charge  of  presumption  ;  a  weighty  objection,  in- 
deed, against  his  Messiahship  !  "  He  preached  himself^ 
(bays  Mr.  Levi)  as  the  li^ht  of  the  world  ;  which  is  an 
instance  not  to  be  paralleled  in  scripture  :  for  the  duty 
of  a  prophet  consisted  in  his  delivery  of  God's  word  or 
message  to  the  people  ;  not  in  presumptuously  preach- 
ing himself.  Again,  we  meet  with  the  same  example 
in  John  xiv.  6.  where  Jesus  preaches  himself y  as  the 
%vai/^  the  truth,  and  the  fife,**  From  all  which  he  con- 
cludes ;  **  It  is  manifest  that  he  was  not  sent  by  God, 
to  us  as  a  prophet,  seeing  he  was  so  deficient  in  the  es- 

•  Mr.  David  Levi's  Letters  to  Dr.  Priestley,  p.  14. 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  rr  ^77 

seiitial  character  of  a  prophet,'**— How  Dr.  Priestley, 
upon  his  principles,  will  be  able  to  answer  this  reason- 
ing, I  cannot  tell.  Though  he  has  written  a  reply  to 
Mr.  Levi,  J  observe  he  has  passed  over  this  part  of  the 
subject  very  lightly  ;  offering  nothing  that  sufficiently 
accounts  for  our  Lord's  preachirtg  himself  as  M^ //^A^ 
of  the  world,  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,  upon  the 
supposition  of  his  being  merely  a  prophet. 

Fourthly  :  The  progress  which  Socinianism  has 
made,  has  generally  been  towards  infidelity. — The 
ancient  Socinians,  though  they  went  great  lenuths,  are, 
nevertheless,  far  out-done  by  the  moderns.  If  we  look 
over  the  Racovian  Catechism,  printed  at  Amsterdam  in 
165-2,  we  shall  find  such  sentiments  as  the  foliowinfr. 
**  No  suspicion  can  possibly  creep  into  the  mind  con- 
cerning those  authors,  (the  sacred  writers)  as  if  they 
had  not  had  exact  cognizance  of  the  things  which  they 
described  ;  in  that  some  of  them  were  e. e  and  ear  wit- 
nesses of  the  things  which  they  set  down,  and  the  oth- 
ers were  fully  and  accurately  informed  by  them  con- 
cerning the  same. — It  is  altogether  incredible,  tliat 
God,  whose  goodness  and  providence  are  immense, 
hath  suffered  those  writings  wherein  he  hath  proposed 
his  will,  and  the  way  to  eternal  life,  and  which  through 
the  succession  of  so  many  ages  have  by  all  the  godly 
been  received  and  approved  as  such,  to  be  any  wavs 
corrupted. "f  I  need  not  go  about  to  prove  that  these 
sentiments  are  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  infidels  by 
modern  Socinians.  Dr.  Priestley,  (as  we  have  seen  in 
Letter  xii.)  supposes  the  sacred  writers  to  have  written 
upon  subjects  "  to  which  they  had  not  given  much  at- 
tention, and  concerning  which  they  had  not  the  meanf? 
of  exact  information  f  *  and,  in  such  cases,  considers 
Z 
*  Levi's  Letters,  p.  24. 
t  Racov.  Catechism,  p.  3,  4. 


$f$  TENDENCY    OF   SOCINIANISM         [lET.   15. 

himself  at  liberty  to  disregard  their  productions.  In- 
stead of  maintaining  that  the  sacred  writings  cannot 
have  been  corrupted,  modern  Socinians  are  continually 
labouring  to  prove  that  they  are  so. 

Some,  who  are  better  acquainted  with  Socinians  and 
Deists  than   I    profess  to  be,  have  observed,   tliat   it  is 
very  common  for  those  who  go  over  to  infidelity  to  pass 
through  Socinianism  in  their  way.     If  this  be  the  case, 
it  is  no  more   than   may  be  expected   according  to  the 
natural  course  of  things.     It  is  not  common,   I   believe, 
for  persons  who  go  over  to  Socinianism,  to  go  directly 
from  Calvinism,   but  through  one  or  other  of  the  difter- 
ent  stages  of  Arminianism,  or  Arianism,  or  both.     Dr. 
Priestley  was  once,   as  he  himself  informs  us,   '*  a  Cal- 
vinist,   and   that   of  the  straitest  sect.     Afterwards,  (he 
adds)  he   became  a  high  Arian,   next  a  low  Arian,  and 
then  a  Socinian,   and  then  in  a  little  time  a  Socinian  of 
the  lowest  kind,  in  which  Christ  is  considered  as  a  mere 
man,   the   son  of  Joseph   and   Mary,   and  naturally  as 
fallible   and   peccable  as  iVIoses  or  any  other  prophet  :" 
to  which  he  might  have  added,  and  in  which  the  plena- 
ry inspiration  of  the  scriptures  is  given  up.*     The  doc- 
tor also  informs  us  that  he   *'  does  not  know  when  his 
creed  will  be  fixed, "f     And  yet  he  tells  us  in   his  vol- 
ume of  Sermons,    (page  95)    that    "  Unitarians  are  not 
apt  to  entertain  any  doubt  of  the  truth  of  their  princi- 
ples,"    But  this,  I  suppose,  is  to  be  understood  of  their 
principles  only  in  one  point  of  view  ;  namely,  as  they 
are  opposed  to  what  is  commonly  called  orthodoxy  :  for 
as  they  are  opposed  to  infidelity,  they  are  apt  to  enter- 
tain  doubts  concerning  them   as  much,    and   perhaps 
more,  than  any  other  men  ;  and  in  that  line  of  improve- 
ment to  hold  themselves  open  to  the  reception  of  great- 

*  Letters  to  a  Phil.  Unb  Pt.  ii.  p.  33—35. 
/  t  De^'  of  Unit,  for  1787,  p.  lU. 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  279 

er  and  greater  illuminations.  It  is  in  this  direction 
that  Dr.  Priestley  has  generall)'  moved  hitherto  ;  and 
should  he,  before  he  tixes  his  creed,  go  one  degree  fur- 
ther, is  there  any  doubt  where  that  degree  will  land 
him  ?  Shouid  it  be  upon  the  shores  of  downright  infi- 
delity, it  can  afford  no  greater  matter  of  surprise  to  the 
christian  world,  than  that  of  an  Arian  becoming  a  So- 
cinian,   or  a  Deist  an  Atheist. 

By  the  following  extract  from  a  letter,  which  I  re- 
ceived from  a  gentleman  of  candour  and  veracity,  and 
extensive  acquaintance  in  the  literary  world,  it  appears 
that  several  of  the  most  eminent  characters  amongst 
professed  unbelievers,  in  the  present  age,  were  but  a 
fe^  years  ago  in  the  scheme  of  Socinus:  "  I  think  I 
may  say  without  exaggeration,  that  of  my  acquaintance 
the  greater  part  of  literary  men  who  have  become  Uni- 
tarians, are    either    sceptics,  or  strongly  tending  that 

way,     1   could  instance  in   — '■ —        ■    — ■ 

— —  and  many  others.  About  four  months  ago,  1  had 
a  pretty  long  conversation  with  one  of  the  above  gentle- 
men (as  intelligent  a  man  as  any  I  know)  on  this  sub- 
ject. He  reminded  me  of  a  conversation  that  had  pass- 
ed betwixt  us  about  a  year  and  a  half  before,  in  which 
I  had  observed,  there  was  a  near  affinity  between  Uni- 
tarianism  and  Deism  ;  and  told  me  he  was  then  rather 
surprised  1  should  suppose  so,  but  that  now  he  was 
completely  of  that  opinion  ;  and  that,  from  very  exten- 
sive observations,  there  was  nothing  he  was  more  certain 
of,  than  that  the  one  led  to  the  other.  He  remarked 
how  much  Dr.  Priestley  was  mistaken  in  supposing  he 
could,  by  cashiering  orthodoxy,  form,  what  he  called, 
rational  christians  ;  for  that  after  following  him  thus 
far,  they  would  be  almost  sure  to  carry  their  specula- 
tions to  a  still  greater  extent.     All  the  processed  unbe- 


TENDENCY    OF    SOCINIANISM         [lET.   15. 

Mevers  1  have  met  with,  rejoice  in  the  spread  of  Unita- 
rianism,  as  favourable  to  their  views.'* 

Christian  brethren,  permit  me  to  request  that  the 
subject  may  be  seriously  considered.  Whether  the 
foregoing  positions  b6  sufficiently  proved,  it  becomes 
Dot  me  to  decide.  A  reflection  or  two,  however,  may 
be  offered  upon  supposition  that  they  are  so,  and  with 
these  I  shall  conclude. 

■  First  :  If  that  system  which  embraces  the  Deity  and 
atonement  of  Christ,  with  other  correspondent  doc- 
trines, be  friendly  to  a  life  of  sobriety,  righteousness, 
and  godliness  ;  it  must  be  of  God,  and  it  becomes  us 
to  abide  by  it  ;  not  because  it  is  the  doctrine  of  Calvin, 
©r  of  any  other  man  that  was  uninspired,  but  as  being 
The  gospel  which  ice  have  received  from  Christ  and  his 
apostles  ;  wherein  ive  standi  and  by  which  we  are  saved* 

Secondly  :  If  that  system  of  religion  which  rejects 
the  Deity  and  atonement  of  Christ,  with  other  corres- 
pondent  doctrines,  be  unfriendly  to  the  conversion  of 
sinners  to  a  life  of  holiness,  and  of  professed  unbelievers 
to  faith  in  Christ ;  if  it  be  a  system  which  irreligious 
men  are  the  first,  and  serious  christians  the  last  to  em- 
brace ;  if  it  be  found  to  relax  the  obligations  to  virtuous 
affection  and  behaviour,  by  relaxing  the  great  standard 
of  virtue  itself;  if  it  promote  neither  love  to  God  under 
his  true  character,  nor  benevolence  to  men,  as  it  is  ex- 
emplified in  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  of  his  apostles  ;  if 
it  lead  those  who  embrace  it  to  be  wise  in  their  own 
eves,  and  instead  of  humbly  deprecating  God's  right- 
eous displeasure,  even  in  their  dying  moments,  arrogant- 
ly to  challenge  his  justice;  if  the  charity  which  it  incul- 
cates be  founded  in  an  indifference  to  divine  truth  ;  if 
it  be  inconsistent  with  ardent  love  to  Christ,  and  ven- 
eration for  the  holy  scriptures  ;  if  the  happiness  which 


LET.    15.]  TO    INFIDELITY.  281 

it  promotes  be  at  variance  with  the  joys  of  the  gospel : 
and,  finally,  if  it  diminish  the  motives  to  gratitude, 
obedience,  and  heavenl}  -mindedness,  and  have  a  natural 
tendency  to  infidelity  ;  it  must  be  an  immoral  system, 
and  consequently  not  of  God.  It  is  not  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  but  another  gospel.  Those  who  preach  it, 
preach  another  JesuSy  whom  the  apostles  did  not 
preach  ;  and  those  who  receive  it,  receive  another  spirit^ 
which  they  never  imbibed.  It  is  not  the  light  which 
cometh  from  above,  but  a  cloud  of  darkness  that  hath 
arisen  from  beneath,  tending  to  eclipse  it.  It  is  not 
the  high-way  of  truth,  which  is  a  way  of  holiness,  but  a 
bye-path  of  error,  which  misleads  the  unwary  traveller  ; 
and  of  which,  as  we  value  our  immortal  interests,  it 
becomes  us  to  beware.  We  need  not  be  afraid  of  evi- 
dence, or  of  free  inquiry.  For,  if  irreligious  men  be 
the  first,  and  serious  christians  be  the  last,  who  embrace 
the  Socinian  system ;  it  is  easy  to  perceive,  that  the 
avenues  which  lead  to  it  are  not,  as  its  abettors  would 
persuade  you  to  think,  an  openness  to  conviction,  or  a 
free  and  impartial  inquiry  after  truth  ;  but  a  heart 
secretly  disaffected  to  the  true  character  and  govern^ 
ment  of  God,  and  dissatisjied  with  the  gospel-way  of 
salvation. 

I  ♦am, 
Christian  Brethren, 

Respectfully  and  affectionately, 
Your's, 

ANDREW  FULLER. 


Z2 


POSTSCRIPT. 


ON  the  first  appearance  of  the  foregoing  Letters, 
in  1793,  some  of  the  most  respectable  characters 
amongst  the  Socinians,  and  who  have  since  affected 
to  treat  them  with  contempt,  acknowledged  that  they 
were  "  well  worthy  of  their  attention.''  No  answer, 
however,  appeared  to  them  till  1796,  when  Dr.  Toul- 
min  published  his  Practical  Efficary  of  the  Unifa^ 
rian  doctrine,  and  Mr.  Kentish  his  Sermon  on  The 
moral  tendency  of  the  genuine  christian  doctrine* 
To  these  publications  a  reply  was  written  in  1797» 
entitled,  Socinianism  indefensible ^  on  the  ground  of  its 
moral  tendency.  Mr.  Kentish  wrote  again,  and  Dr. 
Toulmin  has  lately  published  a  second  edition  of  his 
piece,  with  large  additions. — 1  had  no  inclination  to 
add  any  thing  in  reply  to  Mr.  Kentish,  being  well 
satisfied  that  the  public  should  judge  from  the  evi- 
dence that  was  before  them.  And  as  to  Dr.  Toulmin, 
his  second  edition  is  like  his  first,  full  of  irrelative 
matter. 

Having  been  charged  with  shifting  the  ground  of 
the  argument y  and  begging  the  question^  this  writer 
labours  to  persuade  his  readers  that  he  has  done 
neither,  "  He  did  not  intend,  (he  says)  nor  profess 
to  give  a  full  and  minute  answer  to  Mr.  Fuller's  tract. 
He  meant  not  much  more  than  to  take  an  occasion 
from  that  publication  to  bring  the  general  question, 
namely,  the  practical  efficacy  of  the  Unitarian  doc- 
trine, to  the   test  of  scriptural   facts."*     This  is  ac- 

•  Practics^  Efficacy,  p.  133.  sec.  ed. 


POSTSCRIPT.  28# 

know  led  gj  II  g,  that  if  he  had  professed  to  give  a  prop- 
er answer  to  the  work,  he  would  have  been  obliged 
by  the  laws  of  just  reasoning  to  keep  to  the  ground  of 
his  opponent.  But  intending  only  to  write  a  piece 
that  should  bear  some  allusion  to  it,  he  considered 
himself  at  liberty  to  choose  his  own  ground.  But  if 
this  were  his  intention.  Why  did  he  profess,  at  his 
outset,  to  "  enter  the  lists'*  with  me ;  and  to  com- 
prehend in  his  performance  •«  the  main  point  to  which*^ 
a  reply  to  my  Letters  need  be  directed  ?*'  If  this  be 
not  professing  to  answer  a  work,  nothing  is. 

The  design  of  Dr.  Toulmin  seems  to  have  been  very 
complex,  and  his  account  of  it  has  much  the  appear- 
ance  of  evasion.  He  did  not  intend  to  give  ayw//and 
minute  answer  :  Did  he  mean  to  give  any  answer . 
or  only  to  write  a  piece  which  might  pass  for  an 
answer  ?  He  meant  not  much  more  than  thus  and 
thus  :  Did  he  mean  any  more  ?  If  he  did,  he  ought 
to  have  kept  to  the  proper  ground  of  reasoning  ;  or, 
if  he  thought  it  unfair,  to  have  proved  it  so. 

But  he  had  a  right,  he  says,  to  choose  the  ground 
of  his  argument,  as  well  as  I.  Doubtless,  if  he  had 
chosen  to  write  upon  any  subject,  without  professing 
to  answer  another,  or  wishing  his  performance  to  pass 
for  an  answer,  he  had  :  but  if  at  the  outset  be  propose 
to  **  enter  the  lists"  with  an  opponent,  and  to  com- 
prehend **  all  that  to  which  a  reply  to  his  perfor- 
mance need  be  directed,"  it  is  otherwise.  If  a  chris- 
tian divine  wish  to  write  in  favour  of  Christianity,  he 
is  at  liberty  to  choose  his  ground.  He  may  fix,  as 
Bp.  Newton  has,  on  the  argument  from  prophecy. 
But  if  a  deist  come  after  him,  professing  to  *'  enter 
the  lists"  with  him,  and  to  comprehend  in  his  perfor- 
mance *•  a\l  that  to  which  a  reply  to  the  work  of  his 
opponent  need    be   directed,"    he    is  obliged   by   the 


^84  l»OSTSCRIPT« 

rules  of  just  reasoning,  either  to  examine  the  argu- 
ments ot  his  adveisary,  or  attempt  to  overturn  the 
principle  on  waich  they  rest.  If,  instead  of  trying 
the  truth  of  the  christian  religion  by  the  fultilment  of 
prophecy^  he  were  to  till  up  his  pages  by  arguing  on 
the  improbability  of  miracles,  or  the  sujpciency  oj  the 
light  of  nature^  What  would  Dr.  Toulmin  say  to 
him  ?  And  if  in  order  to  excuse  himself,  he  should 
allege  that  he  did  not  intend,  nor  profess  to  give  a 
full  and  minute  answer  to  his  antagonist  ;  that  he 
meant  not  much  more  than  to  take  an  occasion  from 
his  publication  to  bring  forward  the  general  question 
between  christians  and  deists,  on  the  necessity  of  a 
divine  revelation.  Might  he  not  better  have  held  his 
peace?  Must  not  judicious  persons,  even  amongst  his 
friends,  clearly  perceive  that  he  has  betrayed  the 
cause  ;  and  whether  they  choose  to  acknowledge  it, 
©r  not,  be  fully  convinced  that  if  he  did  not  wish  to 
answer  the  work,  he  should  have  let  it  alone ;  or  if 
the  ground  of  argument  were  unfair,  he  should  have 
proved  it  so,  and  not  have  set  up  another  which  had 
no  relation  to  it  ? 

Thus  it  is,  That  Dr.  Toulmin  has  shifted  the  ground 
of  the  argument :  and  what  is  that  ground  to  which 
he  gives  the  prefereiice  ?  He  wished,  it  seems,  to  try 
*«  the  practical  efficacy  of  the  Unitarian  doctrine  by 
the  test  of  scriptural  facts.'*  Are  those  facts  then  a 
proper  uiedium  for  such  a  trial  ?  I  have  been  used  to 
think  that  every  tree  was  to  be  tried  by  its  own  fruits, 
and  not  by  those  of  another.  Scriptural  facts,  such 
as  those  which  Dr.  Toulmin  alleges,  afford  a  proper 
test  of  the  practical  efficacy  of  scripture  doctrines; 
and  if  brought  against  the  cause  ol  intideiity,  would 
be  in  point.  But  there  is  no  question  in  this  case, 
whether  scripture  truth  be  of  a  practical  nature,  but 


POSTSCRIPT.  '  285 

wherein  it  consists  ?  The  facts  to  which  Dr.  Toulmin 
wishes  to  draw  the  reader's  attention  prove  nothing  in 
favour  of  Unitarianisna,  or  Trinitarianism  :  for  before 
they  can  be  brought  to  bear,  the  work  of  proof  must 
be  accomplished  by  other  means.  An  attempt  to  es« 
tablish  the  practical  efficacy  of  modern  Unitarianism,, 
by  scriptural  facts,  is  like  producing  the  fruits  of^ 
Palestine    in  order  to  ascertain  the  soil    of    Taunton*^ 

Dr.  Toulmin  complained  of  my  animadverting  on> 
particular  passages  in  the  writings  of  Unitarians,  and 
suggested  that  I  ought  rather  to  have  applied  my 
arguments  to  the  general,  the  fundamental  principles- 
of  their  system  ;  **  That  there  is  one  God^  the  Father, 
and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man 
Christ  Jesus.'*  To  this  it  was  answered,  «  The  unity 
of  God,  and  the  humanity  of  Christ,  then  it  seems, 
are  the  principles  which  1  ought  to  have  attacked  ; 
that  is,  I  ought  to  have  attacked  principles  which  I 
profess  to  believe,  and  not  those  which  i  profess  to 
disbelieve.' — "  But  (says  Dr.  T.  in  reply)  does  he 
receive  these  principles  in  iYte  pure  mid  simple  forirt 
in  which  Unitarians  embrace  them  ?"* 

The  doctor  ought  to  have  expressed  his  funda* 
mental  principles  in  his  own  ttords,  and  not  in  those 
of  scripture.  Every  controversial  writer,  who  does 
not  wish  to  beg  the  question,  will  do  so.  He  ought 
to  have  said,  Mr.  Fuller,  instead  of  animadverting  on 
particular  passages  in  the  writings  of  Unitarians, 
should  have  attacked  their  first  principles  ;  That  God 
IS  one  person,  and  that  Christ  is  merely  a  7nan,  This 
had  been  fair  and  open  :  and  had  the  objection  been 
made  in  this  form,  I  might  have  replied  to  this  ef- 
fect ; — My  object  was  not  to  attack  particular  princi- 
ples, so  much  as  the  general  tendency  of  their  religion, 

•  Page  81.     Note, 


286  POSTSCRIPT. 

taken  in  the  gross  ;  and  the  passages  on  which  1  an- 
imadverted, chiefly  related  to  this  view  of  (he  subject. 
Yet,  in  the  course  of  the  work,  I  have  certainly  at- 
tempted to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ  ;  and  whatever 
goes  to  establish  this  doctrine,  goes  to  demolish  those 
leading  principles,  which,  it  is  said,  I  ought  to  have 
attacked  :  for  if  Christ  be  God,  he  cannot  be  merely 
a  man,  and  there  must  be  more  than  one  person  in 
the  Godhead. — But  not  contented  with  expressing  his 
leading  principles  in  his  own  words,  Dr.  Toulmin 
chooses  scripture  language  for  the  purpose.  This,  I 
contended,  was  begging  the  question  ;  or  taking  it 
for  granted  that  the  terms  one  God^  in  scripture,  mean 
07ie  person^  and  that  Christ's  being  called  a  man  de- 
notes that  he  was  merely  a  man.  To  shew  the  im- 
propriety of  this  proceeding,  I  alleged,  that  I  believ- 
ed both  the  unity  of  God,  and  the  humanity  of  Christ ; 
and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  expected  to  oppose 
either  of  them.  '*  But  does  he  receive  these  princi- 
ples (says  Dr.  T.)  in  the  pure  and  simple  form  in 
which  Unitarians  embrace  them?'*  What  is  this  but 
saying,  that  1  do  not  admit  the  Socinian  gloss  upon 
the  apostle's  words  ?  Dr.  Toulmin  may  contend,  that 
the  scriptures  express  his  sentiments  so  plainly  as  to 
need  no  gloss  ;  but  a  gloss  it  manifestly  is.  He  may 
call  it  a  pure  and  simple  form^  or  what  he  pleases  ; 
but  nothing  is  meant  by  it  beyond  a  gloss,  nor  proved, 
except  the  prevalence  of  his  easy-besetting  sin,  that 
of  begging  the  question. 

To  show  in  a  still  stronger  light  the  unfairness  of 
a  controversial  writer's  attempting  to  shroud  his  opin- 
ions under  the  phraseology  of  scripture,  I  supposed  it 
to  be  done  by  a  Calvinist,  and  asked  what  Dr.  Toulmin 
would  say  to  it  in  that  case  ?  I  could  say  for  example. 
There  is  a   Father y    «    Son,    and  a  Holy  Spirit ,    in 


POSTSCRIPT.  a^y^ 

whose  name  we  are  baptised — The  Word  teas  God — 
Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures  ; 
and  could  require  Sociuians  not  to  animadvert  on  par- 
ticular passages  in  Calvinistic  writers,  but  on  these  our 
leading  principles*  Would  they  admit,  or  ought  they 
to  be  expected  to  admit  of  these  as  our  leading  prin- 
ciples ?  No  :  Dr.  Toulmin  has  given  proof  that  he 
does  not,  and  has  thereby  justified  me  in  refusing-  to 
admit  the  same  thing  on  his  side  of  the  question.  He 
will  not  allow  that  our  leading  principles  are  expifssed 
by  these  passages  of  scripture,  because  they  say  noth- 
ing of  the  F'ather,  Son,  and  Spirit  being  one  God,  nor 
o^  2l  sameness  of  essence,  Sfc*  ^c*  Very  well  :  Neith- 
er do  I  allow  that  his  leading  principles  are  expressed 
by  the  passages  he  has  produced  ;  for  they  say  noth- 
ing of  (lod's  bting  one  person,  or  of  Christ's  being 
merely  a  man.  If  the  scriptures  which  I  alleged,  ex^ 
press  my  sentiments  as  fully  as  the  passages  he  has 
produced  express  his,  that  is  sufficient.  My  object 
was  not  to  join  issue  in  endeavouring  to  prove  that  my 
sentiments  were  expressly  and  fully  coritained  in  scrip- 
ture language  ;  but  to  shew  the  futility  of  such  pre- 
tences on  either  side.  So  far  from  "  ait'ecting  to  shew 
that  the  first  principles  of  the  Calvinists  are  to  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  words  of  scripture,"  it  was  manifestly 
mv  design  to  shew  that  the  practice  of  so  expressing 
them  in  controversif^  was  objectionable,  in  that  it  takes 
for  granted  that  which  requires  to  be  proved. 

It  is  true,  as  Dr.  Toulmin  says,  that  if  he,  or  any 
other  person,  were  to  offer  to  subscribe  the  passages 
which  1  have  produced,  as  exhibiting  a  creed  tanta- 
mount to  ours,  we  should  demur  to  admit  it  in  this 
view.  But  this,  instead  of  overturning  my  reasoning, 
confirms  it,  and  cuts  the  throat  of  his  own  argument : 

•  Page  5,  6.  Note. 


285  POSTSCRIPT, 

for  it  is  no  less  true  that  if  I,  or  any  other  person,  were 
to  offer  to  subscribe  the  passages  produced  by  hini» 
€is  exhibiting  a  creed  tantamount  to  his,  he  would 
demur  to  admit  it  in  this  view.  Nay  more  :  in  his 
case  it  is  beyond  supposition.  I  have  actually  offered 
to  subscribe  the  apostle's  words,  and  he  has  actually 
refused  to  admit  my  subscription,  alleging,  that  1  do 
not  receive  them  in  that  pure  and  simple  form  in  which 
Unitarians  embrace  them.  According  to  his  own 
reasoning,  therefore,  the  words  of  the  apostle  by  which 
he  would  express  his  leading  principles  do  not  contain 
the  ichole  of  them,  and  he  must  have  failed  in  his  at- 
tempt to  express  them  in  scripture  language  ;  and 
consequently,  the  '^  boasted  superiority"  of  his  scheme, 
even  in  this  respect,  is  without  foundation. 

If  we  can  believe  Dr.  Toulmin,  however,  the 
scriptures  not  only  expressly  declare  God  to  be  one, 
but  one  person.  '*  This  simple  idea  of  God,  that  he 
is  one  single  person,  (says  he  from  Mr.  Lindsey)  lit- 
erally pervades  every  passage  of  the  sacred  volumes." 
To  this  1  have  answered,  among  other  things,  *  It 
might  have  served  a  better  purpose,  if,  instead  of  thi^ 
general  assertion,  these  gentlemen  had  pointed  us  to 
a  single  instance  in  which  the  unity  of  God  is  literally 
declared  to  be  personal.'  And  what  has  Dr.  Toulmiu 
said  in  reply  ?  **  The  appeal,  one  would  think,  might 
be  made  to  Mr,  Fuller's  own  good  sense.  What  can 
be  more  decisive  instances  of  this  than  the  many  pas- 
sages in  which  the  singular  personal  pronouns,  and  their 
correlates  are  used  concerning  the  Supreme  Being  ;  as 
/,  mey  my^  mine,  ^'c."*  Whatever  may  be  thought  of 
my  good  sense,  or  of  that  of  my  opponent,  I  appeal  to 
good  sense  itself,  whether  he  have  made  good  his  asser- 
tion*     To  say  nothing  of  his  reducing  it  from  every 

*  Page  85.  Note. 


POSTSCKIPT.  289 

passage,  to  »m»y  passages,  which  probably  strikes  out 
ninety-nine  passages  out  of  a  hundred  in  the  sacred 
vohimes  :  If  the  singular  personal  pronouns  be  a  literal 
declaration  that  God  is  one  person,  the  plural  personal 
pronouns,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  &c.  must 
equally  be  a  literal  declaration  that  he  is  more  than 
one.  The  singular  personal  pronouns  also  which  are 
frequently  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,*  contain  a  de- 
cisive proof,  yea,  a  literal  declaration  of  his  personality  ; 
nnd  which  inevitably  draws  after  it  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity. 

Dr.  Toulmin  has  said  much  ohout  judging  the  hearty 
(pp.  95 — 101,  Note  :)  but  his  objection  does  not  seem 
to  lie  against  judging,  so  much  as  judging  Unitarians, 
If  I  affirm  what  the  scriptures  uniformly  teach, f  That 
a  false  and  immoral  system  has  its  origin  not  in  simple 
mistake,  but  in  disaffection  to  GQd,J  this  is  highly 
presumptuous,  this  is  judging  the  heart  :  but  if  Dr. 
Toulmin  pronounce  my  mode  of  arguing  to  be  **  sa- 
vouring of  spleen  and  ill-nature,  and  evidently  designed 
to  fix  an  opprobrium  and  disgrace,"  (p.  134)  tHe 
case  is  altered. 

It  is  right  to  judge  of  the  disposition  of  the  heart  by 
*'  overt  acts  ;"  that  is,  by  words  and  deeds  :  but  where 
this  judgment  is  directed  against  Unitarians,  it  is  not 
right  after  all  ;  for  it  is  possible  we  may  judge  un- 
candidly  and  unjustly  !  It  is  right  for  Dr.  T.  to  dis- 
regard the  profession  of  his  opponent,  when  he  declares 

*  John  xiv.  26.     xv.  26.    xvi.  r— 15.     1  Cor.  xii.  11. 

f  2  Thess.  ii.  10,  11.      2  Pet.  ii.  1.     1  John  iv.  6.    Jude  4. 

t  The  reader  will  recollect  that  what   is  affirmed  at  the 
close  of  the  Letters   is  merely  hypothetical,   and  rests  upon 
the  supposition  of  Socinianism  being  what  I  had  attempted  to 
prove  it— a  false  and  immoral  system. 
A   A 


^90  POSTSCRIPT^ 

his  belief  in  the  unity  of  God,  and  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  and  expresses  that  belief  in  the  words  of  scrip- 
ture, because  he  does  not  <»  receive  these  principles 
in  the  pure  and  simple  Jbrm  in  which  Unitarians  em- 
brace them/*  But  if  we  disregard  their  professions, 
and  require  any  thing  more  than  a  declaration  of  their 
faith  in  the  words  of  scripture,  we  set  up  "  our  gos- 
pel, or  the  gospel  according  to  our  views  of  it  ;"  and 
act  contrary  to  our  professed  principles  as  Protestants, 
as  dissenters,  and  as  Baptists. 

When  our  creed  and  worship  are  such  that  they 
cannot  conscientiously  join  them,  they  have  a  right  to 
separate  from  us,  otherwise  they  could  not  **  keep  the 
commandments  of  Jesus  pure  and  undefiled  :''  But 
whatever  be  their  creed,  or  the  tenor  of  their  conversa- 
tion, or  prayers,  we  have  no  right  to  refuse  communion 
with  them. 

If  we  do  not  model  our  professions,  preaching,  and 
worship,  so  as  to  give  no  offence  to  an  individual  of 
their  principles,  we  '*  assume  a  power  which  no  chris- 
tian, or  body  of  christians  possesses  :'*  yet  they  do  not 
model  their  professions,  preaching,  or  worship,  so  as 
to  give  no  offence  to  us  ;  nor  do  we  desire  they  sliouW. 
They  do  not  confine  themselves  to  the  words  of  scrip- 
ture; nor  is  it  necessary  they  should.  They  inquire 
whether  our  professions  accord  with  the  meaning  of 
scripture  .;  and  we  claim  to  do  the  same.  The  reason 
why  Dr.  T.  will  not  allow  of  this  and  other  claims, 
must,  I  should  think,  be  this  :  Their  views  of  the 
gospel  are  *^  pure  ^nd  simple^''  and  ours  are  corrupt. 
Thus  it  is,  reader,  that  he  goes  about  to  prove  that 
he  does  not  "  take  for  granted  the  principles  on  which 
he  argues,"  and  that  "  he  assumes  nothing  !" — If 
Dr.  T.  caa  persuade  himself  and  his  friends,   that  he 


POSTSCRIPT.  291 

has  not  shifted  the  ground  of  the  argument,  has  not 
assumed  what  he  should  have  proved,  and,  in  short,  has 
not  tacitly  acknowledged  Sociniaoism  to  be  indefensible 
on  the  ground  of  its  moral  tendency,  they  are  welcome 
to  all  the  consolation  such  a  persuasion  will  afford 
them. 

All  I  shall  add  will  be,  a  brief  defence  of  the  prirt' 
ciple  on  which  the  foregoing  Letters  are  written.  To 
undermine  this,  is  a  point  at  which  all  my  opponents 
have  aimed.  The  practical  efficacy  of  a  doctrine  in 
the  present  age  is  a  subject,  it  seems,  which  ought  not 
to  be  discussed  as  the  test  of  its  being  true.  They 
are  to  a  man,  however,  against  it  :  a  pretty  clear  evi- 
dence this,  that  it  does  not  speak  good  concerniDg 
them. 

Mr.  Bel  sham,  in  his  Review  of  Mr.  Wilherforce, 
glancing  at  The  systems  compared,  says,  *«  The  amount 
of  it  is  ;  we  Calvinists  being  much  better  christians 
than  you  Socinians,  our  doctrines  must  of  course  be 
true.'' — "  The  Unitarians  (he adds)  will  not  trespass  up- 
on the  holy  ground.  We  have  learned  that  not  he  who 
commendeth  himself  is  approved^  hut  whom  the  Lord 
commendethJ*^  And,  *'  Be  it  known  to  Mr.  Wilber- 
force,  and  to  all  who  like  him  are  disposed  to  condemn 
their  brethren  unheard,  that  if  the  Unitarians  were 
inclined  to  boast,  they  have  whereof  to  glory.  And 
if  they  took  pleasure  in  exposing  the  faults  of  their 
orthodox  brethren,  they  likewise  hare  tales  to  unfold 
which  would  reflect  little  credit  on  the  parties,  or  on 
their  principles.  But  of  such  mutual  reproaches  there 
would  be  no  end.'** 

Dr.  Toulmin  alleges  that  "  It  is  a  mode  of  arguing 
very  unfavourable  to  candour^  and  fair  discussion, 
savouring  of  spleen  and   ill-nature,  principally   calcu- 

•  Pages  267,  268,  274. 


%§lt  POSTSCRIPT, 

lated  to  misrepresent  a  id  irritate,  and  evident^y  de- 
signed to  fix  aij  opprobrium  and  diso^race'' — that  when 
our  Saviour  cautioned  his  followers  to  heio  are  of  false 
prophets,  who  should  be  known  by  their  fruits,  he 
meant  not  persons  who  would  te^^ch  false  doctrine,  and 
whose  lives  would  accord  with  it  ;  but  persons  of  in- 
sincere character,  whose  doctrine  mio^ht  nevertheless 
be  true — and  that  his  brethren  have  not  reasoned 
against  Calvinism  from  the  immoral  lives  of  Calvinisti;, 
but  merely  from  the  immoral  tendency  of  their  prin- 
ciples.* 

If  the  mode  of  arguing  pursued  in  the  foregoing 
Letters  be  liable  to  all  these  objections,  it  is  rather 
singular  that  it  should  not  have  been  oVjjected  to  till  it 
was  pointed  against  Socinianism,  If  it  can  be  shewn 
to  be  a  mode  of  arguing  consonant  to  the  directions 
given  by  our  Saviour,  and  actually  used  by  the  apos- 
tles, the  fathers,  the  re  formers,  the  puritans,  and  even 
by  our  opponents  themselves,  their  objecting  to  it  in 
this  instance  will  prove  nothing,  except  it  be  the 
weakness  of  their  cause. 

Our  Saviour  warned  his  followers  to  beivare  of  false 
prophets^  and  gave  this  direction  concerning  them  : 
Ye  shall  knoiv  them  by  their  fruits.f  This  direction, 
founded  in  self-evident  truth,  and  enforced  by  the 
head  of  the  christian  church,  appeared  to  me  to  furnish 
a  proper  criterion  by  which  to  judge  of  the  claims,  if 
not  of  every  particular  opinion,  yet  of  every  system  of 
opinions,  pretending  to  divine  authority. 

Mr.  Kentish  admitted  that  "  The  effects  produced 
by  a  doctrine  was  a  proper  criterion  of  its  value,  but 
not  of  its  truth,''  But  the  value  of  a  doctrine  im- 
plies  its  truth.      Falsehood  is  of    no  value  :    whatever* 

•  Pages  134,  148,  154.         f  Matt.  vii.  15—20. 


POSTSCRIPT.  293 

proves   a  doctrine  valuable,    therefore,    must  prove  it 
to  be  true. 

Mr.  Kentish  farther  objects  :  "  This  celebrated 
saying  of  our  Saviour  is  proposed  as  a  test  of  character^ 
and  not  as  a  criterion  of  opinion,'*  To  the  same  pur- 
pose Dr.  Toulmin  alleges,  that  **  This  is  a  rule  given 
to  judge  not  concerning  principles^  but  men  ;  not  con- 
cerning the  sentiments  promulgated  by  them,  but  con- 
cerning their  own  characters  and  pretensions. — The 
persons  here  pointed  at  are  hypocrites  and  false  proph- 
ets :  such  as  would  falsely  pretend  a  commission  from 
God.  Their  pretensions  might  be  blended  with  a  true 
doctrine;  but  their  claims  were  founded  in  dissimu- 
lation. They  would  be  discovered  by  their  covetous- 
ness,  love  of  gain,  and  lasciviousness."     p.  148. 

These  writers  are  in  general  exceedingly  averse  to 
judging  men,  considering  it  as  uncandid,  and  presump- 
tuous, and  plead  for  confining  all  judgment  to  things  ; 
but  in  thi«  case  things  seem  to  be  in  danger,  and  there- 
fore men  are  left  to  shift  for  themselves. 

According  to  this  exposition,  it  is  the  duty  of  chris- 
tians, when  ministers  discover  an  avaricious  and  ambi- 
tious disposition,  though  sound  in  doctrine,  and  in 
time  past  apparently  humble  and  pious,  to  set  them 
down  as  hypocrites.  And  this  is  more  candid,  it  seems, 
and  savours  less  of  spleen  and  ill-nature  than  drawing 
an  unfavourable  conclusion  of  their  doctrinal  prin- 
ciples. 

But  waving  this  :  The  saying  of  our  Saviour  is  given 
as  a  test  o^ false  prophets,  or  teachers  ;  an  epithet  never 
bestowed,  I  believe,  on  men  whose  doctrine  was  true» 
That  false  prophets  and  teachers  were  men  of  bad  char- 
acter, I  admit,  though  that  character  was  not  always 
A   A   2 


^94  POSTSCRIPT. 

apparent  :*  but  that  they  are  ever  so  denominated  on 
account  of  their  character,*  as  distinct  from  their  doc- 
trine, does  not  appear.  When  any  thing  is  said  of  their 
doctrine,  it  is  invariably  described  as  false.  If  any 
man  shall  say  unto  you^  lo  here  is  Christy  or  lo  therCy 
BELIEVE  HIM  NOT:  for  falsc  Christs,  and  false 
PROPHETS,  bearing  witness  in  their  favour,  shall  arise 
—  There  ivere  false  prophets  among  the  people^  even 
as  there  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who 
privily  shall  6ri«^  m  d^^mnable  heresies,  even  de- 
nying the  Lord  that  bought  them,  ayid  bring 
upon  themselves  swift  destruction — Beloved,  believe  not 
every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be  of  God  : 
because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
world — Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God — 
Whosoever  transgressethj  and  abideih  not  in  the  Doc- 
trin  E  OF  Christ,  hath  not  God — If  there  come  any 
unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him 
not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed  :  for  he 
that  biddeth  him  God  speed  is  partaker  of  his  evil  deeds.'f 

If  the  false  prophets  described  by  our  Saviour  were 
such  as  might  teach  '*  a  true  doctrine,"  the  descriptions 
given  by  the  New-Testament  writers,  uniformly  repre- 
senting them  as  teaching  falsehood,  are  at  variance  with 
those  of  their  master. 

That  there  were  hypocrites  who  taught  a  true  doc- 
trine, may  be  allowed  :  but  they  are  never  denominated 
false  prophets,  or  false  teachers.  Balaam  w3fe  a  wicked 
character,  and  is  called  a  prophet ;  but  as  the  subject 
matter  of  his  prophecies  were  true,  he  is  not  called  a 

*  2  Cor.  xi.  14.     Matt,  vii    15. 

I  Mark  xiii.  21,  22.    2  Pet.  ii.  1.      1  John  iv.  1—3- 

2  John  10,  11. 


POSTSCRIPT.  295 

false  prophet.  Judas  also  was  a  hypocrite  and  a  thief, 
at  the  same  time  that  he  was  a  preacher  and  an  apostle  ; 
but  as  what  he  taught  was  true,  he  is  not  described  as 
^  false  teacher,  or  -a  false  apostle. 

These  things  considered,  let  the  impartial  reader  de- 
termine. Whether  our  Saviour  did  not  mean  to  direct 
his  followers  to  judge  by  their  fruits,  who  were  the  pat-- 
Tons  of  false  doctrine  ? 

With  respect  to  the  use  which  has  been  made  of  this 
direction,  I  appeal  in  the  tirst  place  to  the  apostles^  and 
New-Testament  writers.  I  presume  they  will  not  be 
accused  of  self-commendation,  nor  of  spleen  and  ill- 
nature;  yet  they  scrupled  not  to  represent  those  who 
believed  their  doctrine  as  washed  and  sanctified  from 
their  former  immoralities  ;  and  those  who  believed  it 
not  as  having  pleasure  in  unrighteousness,*  All  those 
facts  which  Dr.  Toulmin  has  endeavoured  to  press  into 
the  service  of  modern  (Jnitarianism  are  evidences  of  the 
truth  of  the  primitive  doctrine,  and  were  considered  as 
such  by  the  New-Testament  writers.  They  appealed 
to  the  effects  produced  in  the  lives  of  believers  as  living 
epistles,  known  and  read  of  all  men,  in  proof  that  they 
had  not  corrupted  the  word  of  God^  but  were  the  true 
ministers  of  Christ. f  VVith  the  fullest  confidence  they 
asked.  Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the  world,  but  he  that 
helieveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  ?%  Plainly  inti- 
mating that  truth  was  well  known  by  its  effects.  Nor 
was  error  less  so  :  those  who  introduced  false  doctrines 
are  invariably  described  as  unholy  characters. || 

To  quote  the  reasonings  of  the  fathers  on  this  princi- 
ple, were  to  co[)y  a  large  proportion  of  their  apologies. 
I  question  whether  there  be  one  of  thetn  which  does  not 

»  1  Cor.  vi.  9—11.      2  Thess.  ii   12.       f  2  Cor.  ii.  17.  iii.  1— S. 
4  1  John  V.  5.     II  2  Pet.  ii.  1—3.    Jude.     1  Cor.  xv.  ^3,  34. 


296'  POSTSCRIPT, 

contain  arguments  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  on  the 
ground  of  the  holy  lives  of  christians  ;  and  which  does 
not  infer,  or  in  some  form  intimate,  the  falsehood  of 
heathenism  from  the  known  immorality  of  heathens. 
Their  opponents  having  no  better  answer  at  hand,  might 
posjjibly  charge  this  reasoning  with  vain  boacting, 
spleen,  and  ill-nature  :  but  1  do  not  recollect  that  it 
was  ever  imputed  to  these  causes  by  christians. 

As  to  the  reformers^  the  most  successful  attacks 
which  they  made  upon  the  church  of  Rome,  were 
founded  on  the  dissolute  lives  of  her  clergy,  and  the 
holiness  and  constancy  of  those  whom  she  persecuted 
unto  death.  The  general  strain  of  their  writings  may 
be  seen  in  Fox's  Martyrology,  which  is  in  eftect  an  ex- 
hibition of  the  moral  character  of  the  persecutors  and 
the  persecuted,  from  which  the  world  is  left  to  judge 
which  was  the  true  religion  :  and  1  may  add,  a  consid- 
erable part  of  the  world  did  judge,  and  acted  accord- 
ingly. 

Dr.  Toulmin  suggests  from  Mosheim,  that  the  re- 
formers, and  particularly  Calvin  and  his  associates, 
neglected  the  science  of  morals.*  But  Mosheim's 
prejudices  against  Calvin  and  his  associates  render  his 
testimony  of  but  little  weight,  especially  as  the  reader 
may  satisfy  himself  of  the  contrary  by  the  writings  of 
the  parties,  which  are  yet  extant.  The  eighth  chapter 
of  the  second  book  of  Calvin's  Institutes  is  sufficient  to 
wipe  away  this  slander.  The  morality  there  inculcated 
is  such  as  neither  Antinomians,  nor  '*  great  numbers'* 
amongst  modern  Unitarians,  can  endure.  That  there 
were  some  among  the  gospellers,  as  they  were  called, 
who  were  loose  characters,  is  admitted  :  such  there  are 
in  every  age  :    but  take  the  reformed  as  a  body,   and 

»  Page    153. 


POSTSCRIPT.  297 

they  were  not  anly  better  christians  than  their  persecu- 
tors, but  than  those  their  successors,  who,  while  pretend- 
ing to  teach  the  "science"  of  morality,  have  deserted 
the  great  principles  by  which  it  requires  to  be  animated, 
and  debased  it  by  allowing  the  amusements  of  the  thea- 
tre, and  other  species  of  dissipation,  to  be  consistent 
with  it. 

The  historian  of  the  Puritans  has  recorded  of  that 
persecuted  people,  that  '*  While  others  were  at  plays 
and  interludes,  at  revels,  or  walking  in  the  fields,  or 
at  the  diversions  of  bowling,  fencing,  &c.  on  the  evening 
of  the  Sabbath,  they,  with  their  families,  were  employed 
in  reading  the  scriptures,  singing  psalms,  catechising 
their  children,  repeating  sermons,  and  prayer — That 
neither  was  this  confined  to  the  Lord*s  day,  but  they 
had  their  hours  of  family  devotion  on  the  week-days, 
esteeming  it  their  duty  to  take  care  of  the  souls  as  well 
as  of  the  bodies  of  their  servants — and  that  they  were 
circumspect  as  to  all  the  excesses  of  eating  and  drink- 
ing, apparel  and  lawful  diversions  ;  being  frugal  in 
house-keeping,  industrious  in  their  particular  callings, 
honest  and  exact  in  their  dealings,  and  solicitous  to 
give  to  every  one  his  own."* 

These  things  might  not  be  alleged  in  proof  of  the 
truth  of  every  particular  opinion  which  they  held  ;  nei- 
ther have  T  inferred  from  such  premises  the  truth  of 
every  opinion  maintained  by  Calvinists  :  but  they  were 
alleged  in  proof  that  their  religion  in  the  main  was  that 
of  Jesus  Christy  and  the  religion  of  their  adversaries 
a  vert/ near  approach  to  that  of  Antichrist,  Nor  do  I 
recollect  that  the  writer  has  been  charged,  unless  it  be 
by  those  who  felt  the  condemnation  which  his  story  im- 
plied, with  vain-boasting,  spleen,  or  ill-nature, 

•  Neale's  Hist.  vol.  i.  chap.  viii. 


a9&  POSTSCRIPT. 

Finally  :  Will  our  opponents  accuse  themselves  of 
these  evils  for  having  reasoned  upon  this  principle  as 
far  as  they  are  able  ?  That  they  have  done  this  is  mani- 
fest, though  Dr.  Toulmin  affects  to  disown  it,  alleging,, 
that  they  have  not  reasoned  on  the  lives  of  men,  but 
merely  on  the  tendency  of  principles,*  That  they  have 
reasoned  o\\  the  tendency  of  principles,  is  true  ;  and  so 
have  I  :  such  is  the  reasoning  of  the  far  greater  part  of 
the  foregoing  Letters.  But  that  they  avoided  all  refer- 
ence to  the  lives  of  Calvinists,  is  not  true.  Was  it  on 
the  tendency  of  principles,  or  on  the  lives  of  men,  that 
Dr.  Priestley  reasoned,  when  he  compared  the  virtue 
of  Trinitarians  with  that  of  Unitarians,  allowing  that 
though  the  latter  had  more  of  an  apparent  conformity 
to  the  world  than  the  former,  yet  upon  the  whole  they 
approached  nearer  to  the  proper  temper  of  Christianity 
than  they  ?f  Did  he  confine  himself  to  the  tendency 
of  principles,  in  what  he  has  related  of  Mr.  Badcock  rj 
Does  he  not  refer  to  the  practices  of  Antinomians  in 
proof  of  the  immoral  tendency  of  Calvinism,  represent- 
ing them  as  the  legitimate  offspring  of  our  principles  ?|| 

And  though  Mr.  Belsham  now  affects  to  be  dis- 
gusted with  this  mode  of  reasoning,  yet  there  was  a 
time  when  he  seemed  to  think  it  would  be  of  service 
to  him,  and  when  he  figured  away  in  the  use  of  it. 
Did  he  not  affirm,  that  ''  they  who  fire  sincerely  pious, 
and  diffusively  benevolent  with  our  principles,  could 
not  have  failed  to  have  been  much  better,  and  much 
happier,  had  they  adopted  a  milder,  a  more  rational, 
a  more  truly  evangelical  creed  ?"  And  what  is  this 
but  affirming,  that  those  of  his  sentiments  are  hettet 
and  happier  in  general  than  others  ? 

*  Page  154     \  Dis.on  Var.  Sub.  p  100     %  Fam.  Let.  Let.  xxii. 
ii  See  the  quotation,    p.  95,  of  the  foregoing  Letters. 


POSTSCRIPT.  299 

"Vet  this  gentleman  affects  to  despise  the  foregoing 
Letters,  for  that  the  sum  of  thera  is,  "  We  Calvinists 
being  much  better  christians  than  you  Socinians,  our 
doctrines  must  of  course  be  true."*  Strange,  that 
a  writer  should  so  far  forget  himself,  as  to  reproach 
the  performance  of  another  for  that  which  is  the  char- 
acteristic of  his  own  ! 

Nor  is  this  all — In  the  small  compass  of  the  same 
discourse,  he  expresses  a  hope  that  Socinian  converts 
would  **  at  length  feel  the  benign  influence  of  their 
principles,  and  demonstrate  the  excellence  of  their 
faith,  by  the  superior  dignity  and  worth  of  their  char* 
acter,^^  If  the  excellence  of  principles,  (and  of  course 
their  truth,  for  nothing  can  be  excellent  which  is  not 
true)  be  not  demonstrable  by  the  character  of  those 
who  embrace  them.  How  is  superior  dignity  and  worth 
of  character  to  demonstrate  it  ? 

Such  was  once  the  **  self-commending"  language 
of  Mr.  Belsham  :  but  whether  his  converts  have  dis- 
appointed his  hope,  or  whether  the  ground  be  too 
*«  holy"  for  him,  so  it  is,  that  he  is  now  entirely  of  a 
different  mind;  and  what  is  worse,  would  fain  per- 
suade his  readers  that  it  is  ground  on  which  he  and 
his   breUn-en  have  never  "  trespassed." 

This  is  the  man,  who  after  throwing  down  the 
gauntlet,  declines  the  contest  ;  and  after  his  partisans 
have  laboured  to  the  utmost  to  maintain  their  cause, 
talks  of  what  they  could  say,  and  do^  were  they  not 
withheld  by   motives  of  generosity  ! 

One  would  imagine  from  Mr.  Belshara*s  manner 
of  writing,  that  1  had  dealt  largely  in  tales  of  private 
characters.  The  truth  is,  what  tales  have  been  told 
^re  of  their  own   telling.     I  freely   acknowledged  that 

*  Review  of  Mr.  Wilberforce,  p.  274. 


300  POSTSCRIPT. 

<  I  was  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  bulk  of 
Sociiiians,  to  judge  of  their  oio  ral  character,'*  Ev- 
ery thing  was  rested  on  their  ow.n  concessions  ;  and 
this  it  is  which  is  the  galling  circumstance  to  Mr. 
Belsham  and  his  party.  They  may  now  insinuate 
what  great  things  they  could  bring  forward  to  our  dis- 
advantage, were  they  not  restrained  by  motives  of 
modesty  and  generosity  :  but  they  can  do  nothing. 
They  might  indeed  collect  tales  of  individuals,  and 
point  out  many  faults  which  attach  to  the  general 
body  :  but  they  cannot  prove  it  to  be  equally  immoral 
with  the  general  body  of  Socinians.  Before  this  can 
be  consistently  attempted,  they  must  retract  their 
concessions  ;  and  this  will  not  avail  them,  for  it  must 
be  manifest  to  all  men  that  it  was  only  to  answer  an 
end. 

The  reader  is  now  left  to  judge  for  himself,  whether 
the  principle  of  reasoning  adopted  in  the  foregoing 
Letters,  be  justly  liable  to  the  objections  which  have 
been  raised  against  it  ;  whether  our  opponents  did 
not  first  apply  it  against  us  ;  and  whether  any  other 
reason  can  be  given  for  their  present  aversion  to  it, 
than  that  they  feel  it  to  be  unfavourable  to  their 
cause,  A.    F. 


See  page  9^,  of  the  Letters. 


FINIS. 


14  r>*v 


c> 

— 

> 

3 

3 

r- 
r- 

fD 

o 

3 

o 

3 

3-  ir 

i 

Q 

3 

5" 
Q 

o 

Q 

CL 

3 

3 

1 

rr 

Q 

3  3 

Q    Q 

CTcr 

> 
-< 

OB 

m 

CD 

fD 

(D 

yo 

fD 

fD 

s 

3 

Q 

n 

ir 
Q 

3 

> 

3 

CD 

0) 
Q- 

a 

^^ 

> 

m 

yo 

Q  ^ 

Q 

J^ 

3 

3 

N4 

Q_ 

(O 

(D 

o 

Q 

3 

O 

> 

><  CD 

CO 

-< 

on 

O 

Oi 

0 

O 

?-n 


O 


VI 


NO 


I A  04198 


